^7 


liii  ^  s^  ^^  ^:^  i;a.^ 

I  IF    THE 

AT 

PRINCETON,   N.  J. 
SAMUEL    AGNE^V, 

or     PHILADELPHIA,     PA. 

Qyyb. 


I         Case,  Divisir-   .J 

Z         Shelf,  ^^^^  .;• 

I         BooK\  ^^^'  i 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Thepiogical  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/viewoftrinitytreOOsmit 


VIEW  OF  THE  TRINITY. 

A 

TREATISE 

OJf  THE 

OF 

AWD  ON  THE 

TRINITY  IN  UNITY  OF  THE  GODHEAD; 

WITH 

cauotations  from  tlit  iirfmitiijc  JfatfitvB. 

SECOKD  EPITIOIT. 


BY  ETHAN  SMITH, 

PASTOR  OF  A  CHURCH  IN  POULTNET,  (VT.) 


"  Immanuel, — God  with  us." 

"  la  the  name  of  the  Father,  an  J  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 

Holy  Ghost." 

"  Because  he  believeth  not  the  record  that  Go4 

gave  of  his  Son." 


PWBLISHED  AKB  PRINTET)  BT  SMITH  Si  flHCnfKV 

POULTNEYvCvT.) 


©(strict  oi  Wtvmont,  To  wit : 

BE  IT  REMEMBERED,  That  on  the  seventeenth  day 
•of  January,  in  the  forty-eighth  year  of  the  independence  of  the 
United  Stales  of  America,  Smith  &  Shute,  of  the  said  Dis- 
trict, have  deposited  in  this  office  the  title  of  a  book,  the  right 
■whereof  they  claim  as  proprietors,  in  the  words  following,  to 
•wit :  "  View  of  the  Trinity. — A  Treatise  on  the  Character  of 
Jesus  Christ,  and  on  the  Trinity  in  Unity  of  the  Godhead  ; 
with  Quotations  from  the  Primitive  Fathers.  Second  edition. 
By  Ethan  Smith,  Pastor  of  a  church  in  Poultney,  Vt.  'Im- 
jnanuel, — God  with  us.'  '  In  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'  'Because  he  believeth  not 
the  record  that  God  gave  of  his  Son.'  "  In  conformity  to  the 
act  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  entitled  "An  act  for 
the  encouragement  of  learning,  by  securing  the  copies  of  maps, 
charts,  and  books,  to  the  authors  and  proprietors  of  such  copies, 
during  the  times  thereia  mentioned."  f 

JESSE  GOVE, 
Clerk  of  the  District  of  Vermont, 
A  true  copy  of  record,  examined  and  sealed  by 

J.  GOVE,  Clerf:. 


iiecommentrationsi* 


Rev.  Dr.  Emmons'. — "  The  Rev.  E.  Smith  read  to  tne,  some 
time  Eigo,  his  Treatise  on  the  Character  of  Jesus  Christ,  ani 
on  the  Trinity.  I  much  approved  of  his  sentiments  ;  and  am 
Tery  desirous  that  his  piece  should  be  published ;  because  I 
think  it  is  ably  executed,  and  directly  calculated  to  refute 
some  dangerous  errors,  which  arc  at  the  present  day  iadustrir 
eusly  propagated. 

NATHANAEL  EMMONS, 

Franklin,  (Mass.)  March  30, 1814." 

Rev.  Dr.  Grijin's. — '■''  I  have  had  th«  pleasure  of  hearing 
the  Rev.  E.  Smith  read  a  considerable  part  of  his  Treatise  ott 
the  Character  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  on  the  Trinity  ;  and  am  one 
of  those,  "Who  have  urged  him  to  lay  this  wortt  before  the 
public.  In  my  opinion  it  is  the  most  ample,  consistent,  and 
satisfactory  exhibition  of  the  Filiation  of  Christ,  tl'at  1  have 
seen.  The  author  has  evinced  an  extensive  acquaintance 
with  the  holy  scriptures,  and  indefatigable  industry  in  col- 
lecting their  testimony.  In  this  age  of  error,  I  cannot  but 
think  that  the  pubUcation  of  this  work  may  be  of  essential 
service  to  the  cause  of  truth  ;  and  Co  heartily  wish  it  a  gene- 
ral circulation,  and  the  most  distinguished  success. 

E.  D.  GRIFFIN-. 

Boston,  (Mass.)  March23,  IQW^ 


IT 

Rev.  Dr.  Morse's. — "I  have  examined  with  attention  the 
Rev.  E.  Smith's  work,  entitled  a  Treatise  on  the  Character  of 
Jesus  Christ,  and  on  th't  Trinity. 

In  view  of  the  errors  of  the  times,  of  those  particularly  which 
have  been  spreading  for  some  time  past  in  this  region,!  consider 
this  little  volume  as  an  excellent  and  very  seasonable  antidote 
to  the  poison  of  these  errors.  It  is  a  work  honorable  to  the  tal- 
ents, the  industry,  the  piety,  and  candor  of  its  author. 

In  this  publication,  I  consider  Mr.  Smith  as  having  rendered 
essential  service  to  the  Christian  public,  and  that  he  has  mer- 
ited their  thanks  and  patronage.  I  earnestly  wish  it  may  be 
read  by  all  on  either  side,  who  feel  an  interest  in  the  existing^ 
controversy  on  these  g^reat  and  fundamental  doctrines  of  the 
gospel  of  Christ. 

JEDIDIAH  MORSE. 

Ckarlestown,  (Mass.)  April  18, 1814." 


^tJbrrtfscment 


It  is  but  justice  here  to  inform  the  reader,  in  order 
that  he  may  intelligibly  peruse  the  following  treatise^ 
that  for  several  years  before  the  publication  of  the 
first  edition,  a  certain  branch  of  Unitarians  in  our 
land  made  a  new  attempt  to  promote  the  Unitarian  ia- 
terest,  by  advancing  the  scheme  and  arguments, 
against  which  this  treatise  directs  its  eflforts.  The 
scheme  was  conceived  by  its  propagators  to  be  m 
some  important  respects  new ;  and  calculated  to  re- 
concile all  parties.  It  was  vindicated  with  abilitiest. 
Some  became  proselytes  ; — many  were  for  a  time 
stumbled  ; — and  considerable  expectations  seemed  to 
be  excited  among  Unitarians  generally. 

Regardless  of  names,  or  titles  of  books,  this  trea? 
tise  was  designed  to  examine  the  new  scheme  ;  and 
to  trace  and  refute  its  arguments.  It  was  thought  to 
be  best  calculated  for  good,  co  lead  the  attention  of 
the  reader  abstractedly  to  the  sentiments  and  argu- 
ments of  our  opponents ;  without  any  consideration 
of  names,  or  authorities.     This  plan  was  pursued. 

Most  of  the  arguments  and  sentiments  of  this  worB 
^e  such  99  apply  to  Unitarians  of  erery  des«ripli«B  ; 
1* 


whether  Arian  or  Socinian  ;  or  to  any  new  shade  of 
either.  The  great  doctrines  of  the  Trinity  in  unity 
of  the  Godhead,  and  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  notwithstanding  what  is  said  of 
Christ's  dependence  on  the  Father,  both  as  a  man 
and  in  his  office  of  mediation,  are  capable  of  scriptu- 
ral demonstrations  |  and  must  be  viewed  essential 
doctrines* 


#rcCacr, 


Itjs  the  remark  of  an  eminent  man,  that  "Divinity 
consists  in  speaking  rn'ith  the  scrij)ture  ;  and  in  going 
no  further.^''  By  this  rule  I  hope  I  shall  strictly  pro- 
ceed, in  discussing  the  deep  and  interesting  subject 
oi  this  treatise.  The  subject  is  a  matter  of  mere 
Revelation.  To  this  then,  we  ought  to  repair,  and 
to  abide  by  the  decision  there  found.  The  mode  of 
the  divine  existence  is,  of  all  things,  the  most  mys- 
terious and  sublime.  And  of  all  subjects,  it  demands 
the  most  solemn  awe,  self-diffidence,  and  humble 
reliance  on  the  dictates  of  Revelation.  Learn  what 
the  Bible  says  upon  that  subject,  and  the  point  is 
gained.  This  is  all  that  man  can  do.  It  is  not  only 
vain,  but  impious  to  object  to  the  point  thus  decid- 
ed, because  unfathomable  depths  of  mystery  at- 
tend it. 

The  universe  is  full  of  mystery.  Man  is  of  yester* 
day,  and  knows  nothing.  If  he  have  learned  enough 
to  take  an  intelligent  survey  of  God's  works,  he  is 
confounded  wherever  he  turns  his  eyes.  He  looks 
at  immensity  of  space,  and  is  lost  in  wonder.  He 
contemplates  the  planetary  system,  and  the  starry 


A. 

vm 

heavens,  with  amazement.  On  earth  he  finds  a 
world  of  objects,  each  one  of  which  is  attended  with 
insolvable  questions  ;  not  excepting  the  smallest  in- 
sect. After  man's  highest  improvements  in  philoso- 
phy  and  science,  he  has  learned  only  to  feel,  most 
exquisitely,  that  his  knowledge  is  as  nothing.  Unex- 
plored regions  of  wonder  glimmer  upon  his  astonish- 
ed sight. 

Many  objections  occur  to  men,  less  informed,  rela- 
tive to  subjects  proposed,  which  they  deem  unan- 
swerable, or  conclusive  against  the  proposed  point  ; 
but  which  objections,  on  better  information,  they 
find  to  be  of  no  weight.  Let  many  persons  be  in» 
formed,  that  there  are  thousands  of  people  on  the 
other  side  of  the  earth,  directly  opposite  to  us,  with 
their  feet  towards  ours,  and  their  heads  directly  the 
other  way  ;  who  yet  feel  themselves  on  the  top  of 
the  globe,  and  think  we  are  beneath  them ;  and  the 
account  appears  to  these  illiterate  hearers  impossi^ 
ble.  They  will  make  objections  against  it,  which  ap- 
pear to  them  unanswerable  ;  but  at  which  the  man 
of  real  information  smiles. 

How  vain  then,  are  the  objections,  made  by  worms 
of  the  dust,  against  what  God  has  revealed  of  him' 
self!  Who  can  comprehend  the  infinite,  eternaL  in- 
dependent Jehovah  ?  "  Canst  thou  by  searching  find 
out  God  ? — It  is  high  as  heaven  ;  what  canst  thou 
do  ?  Deeper  than  hell ;  what  canst  thou  know  ?'* 
*'  The  world  by  wisdom  knew  not  God."  *'  The 
things  of  God  knoweth  no  man,  but  the  Spirit  of 
God."  We  are  confounded,  when  we  think  of  ra- 
tional, spiritual  essences.     How  infinitely  more  so? 


when  we  think  of  the  eternal,  independent,  omnipo- 
tent, omniscient  Spirit  1  We  are  lost  in  an  ocean, 
without  a  bottom,  or  a  shore  !  What  shall  direct  our 
faith  in  such  a  case  ?  The  Word,  the  unerring  Word 
of  God !  This  is  the  only  compass,  the  only  pohir 
star,  on  such  an  ocean.  What  God  informs  of  him- 
self is  to  be  received  with  humble,  adoring  faith  ; 
though  the  subject  exceed  our  comprehension,  as  far 
as  God  is  above  man.  Not  a  word  of  cavil,  or  unbe- 
lief should  escape  the  lip,  or  be  conceived  in  th6 
heart. 

Man  is  blessed  with  three  sources  of  information  * 
his  senses ^  reason,  and  faith  or  Revelation.  Ti  ese 
rise  above  each  other.  The  senses  furnish  materials 
for  reason  ;  and  reason  discovers  the  need  and  evi- 
dence of  Revelation.  But  faith  alone  embraces  the 
subime  dictates  of  Revelation.  Reason  judges,  where 
the  senses  cannot  perceive.  And  futh  embr^es 
what  reason  cannot  suggest,  much  less  comprehend. 
Sense  and  reason  read  the  language  of  Revelation  ; 
and  then  must  wait  for  faith  adoringly  to  embrace 
what  God  suga^ests.  Reason  is  never  to  be  imperti- 
nent in  her  objections,  or  questions,  when  God  speaks. 
This  is  leaving  her  province,  and  committing  herself 
to  the  ocean  of  injidelity.  Here  is  the  fatal  charyb- 
dis,  which  has  ingulfed  millions  in  skepticism  and 
ruin. 

Relative  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ, 
of  his  Sonship,  and  of  the  Trinity  in  Unity  of  the 
Godhead,  Revelation  is  our  only  guide.  Find  the 
plainest  language  of  the  Bible  upon  these  points,  and 
there  we  will  hold;  let  whatever  objections  or  difli- 


culties  seem  to  attend.  Where  reason  fiils,  let  faitU 
adore  !  My  object  in  this  Treatise  is  to  ascertain  the 
rue  sense  of  the  sacred  Oracles  upcn  the  subjects 
proposed  ;  comparing  spiritual  things  with  spiritual;- 

THE  AUTHOK>:> 
IlopkirUony  Feb.  12,  1812a 


S2S'S2!S)S?  2 


WHAT  WAS  THE  fiREAT  QUESTION  CONXERNING 

JESUS  CHRIST,  AFTER  HE  ENTERED  HIS 

PUBLICK  MINISTRY  ON  EARTH  ? 

A  variety  of  publications  have  appeared,  insist- 
ing that  Jesus  Christ,  in  his  highest  nature,  is  lit- 
tralhj  the  Son  of  God.  as  much  as  was  Isaac  the 
son  of  Abraham, — or  Seth  the  son  of  Adam.  To 
prove  this  proposition,  the  testimonies  of  Christ 
that  he  was  the  Sun  of  God,  and  the  questions  and 
confessions  of  others  in  relation  to  the  same  point, 
in  the  first  Christian  age,  are  in  these  books  addu- 
ced as  direct  in  pomt,  to  prove  such  a  literal  deri- 
vation of  Christ  from  God, 

To  ascertain  whether  there  be  anv  weight  in 
such  proof,  we  have  first  to  ascertam  what  wae 
the  question  concerning  Jesus  Christ,  when  he  was 
©n  earth,  and  in  the  apostolic  age. 

We  read  of  Christ's  being  *'  declared  to  be  the 
Son  of  God  with  power, — by  his  resurrection  from 
the  dead."  Here  is  one  decision  of  the  great 
question  of  that  day  ;  and  it  is,  that  Christ  was  the 
Son  of  God.  No  doubt  this  implies  all  the  great 
truths  involved  in  his  mediatorial  name  and  char- 
acter. But  it  looks  more  immediately  at  one 
point,  which  is  now  to  be  asrertamed.  This  point 
was  the  great  question  of  that  day  concerning  him. 
And  what  was  this  ?    Was  it,  w^hether  Christ's 


12 

highest  nature  was  actually  derived  from  God,  as 
a  son  from  a  father,  and  thus  began  to  exist,  and  is 
totally  dependent  ?  Or  was  this  the  great  ques- 
tion concerning  Christ  ?  Was  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
the  true  Messiah  /     Or  was  he  an  impostor? 

Do  we  diid  at  that  day  any  such  question  as  the 
folio ^mg  ?  In  what  sense  is  the  promised  Messiah 
the  Son  of  God  ?  VViiat  is  the  mode  of  his  div  u^.e 
existence?  Was  his  Divinity  derived?  Or  was 
it  underived  ?  Is  it  dependent  ?  Or  is  it  indepen- 
dent ?     Is  it  eternal  ?     Or  had  it  a  beginning  ? 

Was  not  this  the  great  question  of  that  day  ? 
Was  he,  wlio  was  born  of  Mary,  and  who  was  re- 
puted to  be  the  carpenter's  son,  who  preached  and 
wrought  miracles,  was  re-ected  by  the  Jews,  as  an 
impostor  ;  but  was  received  by  many,  ps  the  Mes- 
siah ;  was  this  the  Saviour  of  the  world  ?  Was 
he  indeed  that  wonderful  person,  so  long  foretold, 
and  promised  under  various  titles  ;  and  among  the 
rest,  was  to  be  known  as  the  Son  of  God  ?  Or 
was  he  an  impostor  ? 

Let  this  question  be  decided,  and  we  at  once  de- 
termine what  was  the  most  hteral  sense  of  the 
texts,  which  speak  of  Christ's  being  declared  to 
be  the  Son  of  God  ;  of  man's  beheving,  or  disbe- 
lieving that  Jesus  was  the  Son  of  God.  If  the 
great  question  was  not  concerning  a  literal  Sonship 
of  the  Divinity  of  the  Messiah ;  but  concerning 
the  Messiahship  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  ;  then  what 
was  said,  at  that  period,  concerning  his  being  the 
Son  of  God,  decides  nothing  relative  to  their 
views  of  the  ground  of  his  Sonship  ;  or  of  a  lit- 
eral derivation  of  his  Divinity  from  God,  as  from  a 
father. 

liui  this  w^as  the  great  point  of  contest  at  that 
day  ;  Is  this  Jesns  of  Nazareth  the  Christ  of  God? 
The  Jews  deuied  >  Jesu*  allirmed  j  and  his  mira- 


13 

^le?,  doctrines,  life,  death,  resurrection,  and  as€efi»- 
sion  to  glory,  all  united  to  evince  the  truth  of  his 
affirmation.  When  they  askedChrist,  "  Art  thou 
the  Son  of  God  ?  and  he  said,  I  am ;"  this  was 
the  meaning  5  Art  thou  the  promised  Messiah^ 
and  he  said.  I  am. 

John  the  Baptist  from  the  prison  proposed  the 
very  question   of  that  day :    ''  Art  thou   he,   that 
should  come  ?    Or  do  we  look  for  another  ?"    The 
woman  of  Samaria  says,  "Come   see  a  man,  that 
told  me  all  that  ever  I  did  :  Is  not  this  the  Christ?" 
Let  the  Jews  themselves  decide  this  point.    "  Then 
came  the  Jews  round  about  him,   and   said  unto 
him,  How  long  dost  thou  make   us  to  doubt  ?     If 
thou  be  the   Christ,  tell   us   plainly."     And   the 
Jews  had  agreed,  that  if  any  did  confess  him  to  be 
Christ,  they  should  be  put  out  of  the   synagogue. 
The  hii^h  priest  said  to  Christ,  "  I  adjure  thee,  by 
the  living  God,  ihat  thou  tell  us,  whether  thou  be 
the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God."     Christ  said  to  his 
disciples,   "  But  whom  do  ye  say  that  I  am  ?     And 
Peter   answereth — Thou   art    the   Christ."      No 
question  relative  to  a  literal  Sonship  of  Christ's 
Divinity  appears  to  be  contained  in  these  testimo- 
nies.    But  the  question  then  in  agitation  w?-S,  rel- 
ative to  his  being  the  Christ,  and  not  an  impostor. 
In   Math.  xvi.  20,  the  disciples  were  exhorted  to 
"  tell  no  man  that  he  was  Jesus  the  Christ."     It 
was  because  Jesus  laid  claim  to  this  high  character, 
that  the  high  priest  rent  his  clothes,  in  pretence  of 
horror  at  the  blasphemy  ;    and  not  from  any  idea 
that  Christ  asserted  a  hteral  Sonship  of  his  Divin- 
ity.    The  Jewish  rulers  said,  and  were  vexed,  that 
Christ's  claim   "made  himself  equal  with  God." 
And  again  ;  "  Because  that  thou,  being  a  man,  ma- 
kest  thyself  God."     Christ  told  them,  "  If  ye  be- 
Peve  not  that  I  am  he  (the  true  Messiah)  ye  shall 


14 

die  in  your  sins.''*  He  did  not  mean,  it  ye  believe 
not  that  I  am  a  derived,  dependant  being,  ye  shall 
die  in  your  sins  :  But,  if  ye  believe  not  that  I  am 
the  true  Messiah,  ye  shall  die  in  your  sins.  He 
-said  again  ;  "  If  any  man  will  do  his  will,  he  shall 
know  the  doctrine,  whether  it  be  of  God  ;  or 
whether  I  speak  of  myself."  Did  Christ  mean, 
that  such  an  one  should  know,  at  once,  that  his 
Divinity  was  derived  ?  Or  that  he  should  know, 
that  his  doctrine  was  the  doctrine  of  God  ?  The 
latter,  most  certainly !  As  John  xx.  31,  "These 
are  written,  that  ve  might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God." 

Now  therefore,  when  we  read  of  Christ's  being 
•'  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God  with  power  ;" 
and  of  the  confession  of  some  of  the  primitive 
converts,  *'I  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God;" 
we  must  conclude  that  the  passa^s^es  do  not  relate 
to  a  derivation  of  Christ's  Divinity  from  God,  as 
from  a  Father;  but  to  rhe  real  Messiahship  of  Je- 
sus of  Nazareth  ;  and  to  there  being  salvation  in 
him,  and  in  him  only.  They  relate  to  the  same 
point,  which  Paul  felt,  when  he  was  "  pressed  in 
spirit,  and  testified,  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ."  The 
evidence  of  this  truth  is  ample.  John  says,  "Here- 
by know  ye  the  Spirit  of  God.  Every  spirit  that 
confesseth  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh, 
is  of  God.  And  every  spirit  that  confesseth  not 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh,  is  not  of 
God."  Here  was  the  great  external  criterion  of 
tlvit  day.  It  was  not  to  believe  in  a  literal  Sonship 
of  Christ's  Divinity ;  but  to  believe,  that  Christ 
had  come  in  the  flesh ;  or  to  believe  that  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  was  the  Messiah  ;  in  opposition  to  the 
clamours  of  Jews  and  infidels,  that  Jesus  was  an 
impostor.  The  proper  manifestation  of  this  be- 
lief at  that  day,  wag  far  more  unpopular  and  dan- 


15 

gerous,  than  is  the  support  of  any  point  of  Chris- 
tian doctrine,  at  this  period.  Hence,  duly  to 
maintain  that  profession,  at  that  day,  was  viewed 
as  the  best  external  evidence  of  a  gracious  state. 
Accordingly,  the  same  apostle  says  again,  "  Who- 
soever believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  is  born 
of  God." 

But  when  I  remark,  that  a  derivation  of  Christ's 
Divinity  from  God,  as  a  son  from  a  father,  does  not 
appear  to  have  been  any  question  at  the   com- 
mencement of  the  gospel  day  ;  but  that  the  point 
in  debate  was,  whether  Jesus  was  the  true  Messi- 
ah*?   I  do  not   mean   to   suggest,   that  this  point, 
whether  he  was,  or  was  not  really  God,  was  a  mat- 
ter of  any  degree  of  indifference  ;  or  was  not  un- 
derstood and  decided.     1  do  not  mean  to   admit, 
that  the  Arian,  or  Socinian,  may  receive  any  de- 
gree of  countenance  from  the  views  of  the  peo- 
ple of  that  day.       For    this    I   do   not   believe. 
When  the    people   were    then    taught,    that  Je- 
sus was  the  Christ,  the   reference  was   immedi- 
ately had     to  the  Old  Testament,  to   decide  who 
the  Christ  was,  as   to  his   being  and   character. 
And  this,  in  the  question  of  that  day,  (whether  Je- 
sus was  the  Christ.)  appears  to  have   been   takeo 
as  a  point  decided,  that  Christ  was  included  in  the 
true  and  living  God.     This  appears  to  have   been 
the  case,   from  the  remarks   of  the  Jews,   that  his 
claiming  to  be  the  Messiah,  was   "  making  himself 
God ;"  also  from  the  testimony  of  Thomas,  when 
convinced  of  his  Messiahship.  "  I\Iy  Lord,  and  my 
God !"  and  from  the  tenor  of  the  Old   Testament 
language  concerning  the  Messiah  ;  as   I  shall  have 
occasion  to  show.     I  see  no  room  to  doubt,   that 
the  general  opinion   at   that   day  concerning  the 
Messiah,  was.    that  he  is  the   "Mighty  God;    tli£ 
Everlasting  Father;  the   Jehovah   of  Hosts  ;  the 
1  AM  ;  one  wiih  God;  and  really  God,     For  they 


16 

had  been  taught  all  this  in  their  holy  scriptures^. 
But  when  Jesus  appeared,  born  and  brought  up  a- 
mong  them,  gi'owing  in  wisdom  and  stature,  like 
other  children  and  youth,  in  a  low  grade  of  life,, 
and  perhaps  laboring  as  a  mechanic  : — it  seemed 
to  the  haughty  Jews  impossible,  that  this  should  be 
that  "  Mighty  God,  and  Everlasting  Father."  ex- 
pected as  the  Messiah !  This,  together  with  his 
administration's  being  so  diverse  from  their  fond 
preconceived  notions  of  their  own  temporal  ag- 
grandize rnent  under  the  reign  of  the  Messiah,  led 
them  to  '*  stumble  at  that  stumbling  stone."  They 
would  not  believe  that  this  was  the  Messiali. 
Hence  this  became  the  very  question  of  the  day. 
And  those  who  properly  received  Jesus  as  the 
Christ,  received  him  in  the  very  character,  in 
which  he  had  been  held  up  in  the  Old  Testament. 
Christ  said  to  the  Jews,  "  Search  the  scriptures  : 
for — they  are  they  that  testify  of  me."  And  they 
did  testify,  that  he  was  one  with  God,  and  was 
God ;  the  I  AM  ;  the  Jehovah  of  Hosts  ;  the  God 
of  Israel,  as  will  be  shown  under  the  section  on 
the  Divinity  of  Christ. 

The  Jew  s  had  been  abundantly  taught,  through 
the  law  and  the  prophets,  that  they  must  "  wor- 
ship the  Lord  their  God,  and  him  only."  "  Thou 
shalt  have  no  other  Gods  before  me,"  was  a  prime 
article  in  their  law.  Yet  when  one  and  another 
embraced  the  sentiment,  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ, 
they  made  no  scruple  of  paying  him  divine  honors. 
This  shows,  that  they  understood  their  scrip- 
tures to  teach,  that  Christ  is  one  with  God,  inclu- 
ded in  the  pronoun  ME  in  the  first  command,  be- 
fore whom  no  other,  under  the  name  of  God,  was 
to  be  admitted  ;  and  that  he  was  thus  included  in 
the  Lord  their  God,  whom  only  they  should  serve. 
This  accounts  for  even  the  most   incredulous   o£ 


17 

the  apostles  warmly  acknowledging  him,  "  My 
Lord,  and  my  God."  But  no  account  could  be 
given  of  all  this,  if  the  Jews  had  viewed  the  Mes- 
iiah  to  be  a  distinct  Being  from  the  one  only  liv- 
ing and  true  God. 

The  Jews,  it  is  believed,  held  to  a  Trinity  ia 
the  Godhead.  The  idea  that  they  did  not,  can  by 
no  means  be  admitted  ;  notwithstanding  all  that 
infidel  Jews,  of  later  date,  have  suggested.  Theif 
scriptures  did  teach  a  Trinity  in  the  Godhead  :— w 
God,  the  Prince  of  Peace,  and  the  Spirit  of  the 
Lord.  We  may  safely  presume,  that  the  pious 
Jews  did  believe  their  own  scriptures  in  this  point, 
as  well  as  others. 

The  celebrated  Bishop  Horsley,  (in  answer  to 
the  idea  in  Dr.  Priestly,  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  is  an  obstacle  to  the  conversion  of  the 
Jews,)  says,  "  In  their  most  ancient  Targums,  as 
well  as  in  allusions  in  their  sacred  books,  they^ 
(the  Jews  at  the  time  of  their  restoration)  will 
find  the  notion  of  one  Godhead  in  a  Trinity  of 
Persons.  And  they  will  perceive  that  it  was  in 
contradiction  to  the  Christians,  that  later  rabbins 
abandoned  the  notion  of  their  forefathers," — 
Hence  the  bishop  speaks  of  it,  as  a  "  wretched 
expedient,"  to  deny  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
with  a  view  to  encourage  the  restoration  of  the 
Jews.  And  he  adds,  "  the  Unitarian  scheme  of 
Christianity  is  the  last  therefore,  to  which  the 
Jews  are  likely  to  be  converted  ;  as  it  is  most  at 
enmity  with  their  ancient  faith."  This  author  a- 
gain  says,  "  the  deification  of  the  Messiah,  was 
not  that,  which  gave  offence  to  the  Jews  ;  but  th« 
assertion,  that  a  crucified  man  was -that  divine 
Person."  And  again.  "The  Jews  in  Christ's 
day  had  notions  of  a  Trinity  in  the  divine  nature. 
They  expected  the  second  Person,  wh#m  tkey 


18 

called  the  Logos,  to  come  as  the  Messiah.  For 
the  proof  of  these  assertions,  (he  says)  I  will  refer 
you  to  the  works  of  a  learned  Doctor  Peter  Allix, 
entitled,  The  Judgment  of  the  ancient  Jewish 
church  against  the  Unitarians.  An  anonymous 
work,  (the  Bishop  further  adds)  entitled.  Histori- 
cal Vindication,  or  The  naked  Gospel  ;  supposed 
to  have  been  written  by  Le  Clerc,  printed  in  1690, 
in  vindication  of  Unitarians,  acknowledged,  that 
the  Jews  were  Trinitarians  :  But  says,  they  de- 
rived it  from  the  Platonic  philosophy  ; — as  did  the 
first  Christians  from  the  same  Platonism  of  the 
Jews."*  The  fact,  that  the  Jews  were  Trinitari- 
ans, is  all  we  wish.  We  shall  form  our  own  opin- 
ion relative  to  the  source,  whence  they,  and  the 
first  Christians,  derived  the  sentiment. 

The  evidence  I  conceive  to  be  very  ample,  that 
the  great  point  in  dispute,  when  Christ  appeared 
in  the  flesh,  was.  Is  this  the  Messiah  ?  Is  this  Je- 
sus, that  sacred  Person,  who  is  to  be  known  under 
the  divine  designation  of  the  Son  of  God  ?  If 
the  affirmative  were  granted,  they  had  no  further 
dispute  who  he  was.  He  was  the  Logos  ;  the 
second  Person  in  the  Trinity  of  heaven  ;  one  with 
God.  Hence  the  Jewish  rulers  charged  him,  that 
he  being  a  man,  made  himself  God  :  And  again, 
*'  making  himself  equal  with  God." 

No  declaration  then,  of  Christ,  or  of  others,  at 
that  day,  that  Christ  was  the  Son  of  God,  affords 
the  least  evidence  in  favor  of  a  literal  derivation 
of  his  Divinity  from  God,  as  a  son  from  a  father  ; 
nor  of  his  inferiority  to  the  Father.  And  all  at- 
tempts to  obtain  evidence  in  this  way,  in  favor  Sit 
such  a  derivation,  are  illusory  and  vaiD. 

♦  Tract?,  p.  216. 


§mm^^^  m. 


"^ 


ON  THE  SONSHIP  OF  CHRIST. 

Jesus  Christ  is  called  the  Son  of  God.  Miicliy 
we  read  of  his  Sonship,  and  of  his  divine  Father, 
Are  we  not  hence  taught,  that  Christ,  in  his  divine 
nature,  was  derived  from  God,  as  reallj  as  was 
Isaac  from  Abraham  ?  Answer,  Merely  Christ's 
being  called  the  Son  of  God,  leads  to  no  such 
conclusion.  There  are  children  constituted,  as  well 
as  children  derived.  Yea,  there  are  children  in  fig- 
ures as  well  as  literal  children.  God  is  "  the  fath- 
er of  the  rain,  and  begets  the  drops  of  the  dew," 
— because  he  produces  them.  Angels  are  called 
the  sons  of  God,  because  he  formed  them  in  his 
own  image.  Adam  for  the  same  reason  is  called 
the  son  of  God.  Men  are  said  to  be  God's  off- 
spring. Christians  are  pecuharly  the  sons  and 
daughters  of  the  Lord  Almighty,  because  they  are 
adopted  into  his  family  ; — possess  his  Spirit ;  — • 
cry  Abbe,  Father  ;  and  he  is  making  them  meet 
fo  be  partakers  of  the  inheritance  of  the  saints  ia 
light. 

The  circumstance  then,  of  Christ's  being  called 
the  Son  of  God,  no  more  necessarily  imphes  that 
his  Divinity  was  derived  from  God,  than  the  term 
when  applied  to  other  beings  implies  that  they 
were  literally  deriv^ed  from  the  divine  nature.  No 
«ioubt  there  is  a  peculiarity  in  Christ's  relation  to. 


20 

God,  as  a  Son.  He  is  hence  called  God's  owm 
Son  ; — his  only  Son  ; — his  only  begotten.  But 
those  phrases  do  not  necessarily  enforce  the  idea, 
that  the  Divinity  of  Christ  was  derived  from  God. 
And  other  scriptures  utterly  forbid  such  an  idea, 
ars  I  shall  endeavor  in  future  pages  to  make  ap- 
pear. The  Divinity  of  Christ  is  "  without  father, 
without  mother,  without  descent ;  having  neither 
beginning  of  days,  nor  end  of  time." 

What  sentiments  then,  does  the  word  of  God 
furnish,  relative  to  the  Sonship  of  Jesus  Christ  ? 
It  teaches  that  Christ  is  a  Son,  (in  a  sense)  literal- 
ly ;  and  also  he  is  figuratively  the  Son  of  God. 
He  has  two  natures  in  his  one  Person.  One  of 
them  was  begotten  of  God,  in  the  womb  of  the 
virgin  Mary  ; — which  is  a  reason,  expressly  assign- 
ed by  God  himself,  why  Christ  is  called  the  Son 
of  God.  And  Christ  in  both  his  natures,  Divine 
and  human,  was,  as  our  Mediator,  inducted — con- 
stituted— begotten — into  his  mediatory  office,  in 
which  he  was  perfectly  obedient  to  God,  as  a  per- 
fect son  obeying  a  father.  And  Christ  was  begot- 
ten (raised)  from  the  dead,  to  his  inheritance  in 
glory  ;  as  1  shall  endeavor  to  show. 

The  Sonship  of  Christ  clearly  originates  in  his 
being  begotten  of  God.  This  is  decided  by  in- 
spiration :  Psalm  ii.  7  ;  "I  will  declare  the  de- 
cree: the  Lord  hath  said  unto  me.  Thou  art  mj 
Son  5  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee.''  Find  the 
fullilment  then,  of  this  passage,  and  we  infallibly 
find  the  true  origin  of  Christ's  Sonship.  It  is  evi- 
dent that  this  passage  in  the  second  Psalm  was  a 
prediction  of  something  then  future.  The  event 
predicted  existed  at  the  time  when  David  wrote 
the  Psalm,  only  in  the  divine  counsel;  It  was  in 
the  eternal  counsel  x)f  God,  that  the  second  Person 
in  the  Trinity  should  become  a  Mediator,  and  be 


21 

knOwil'as  the  Son  of  God.  In  this  sen?e.  he  was 
*'  the  eternal  Sou  of  God."  Kut  the  actual  event, 
noted  in  this  Psalm  ae  the  only  ground  of  Christ-s 
Filiation,  was  then  only  in  decree*  Ascertain 
therefore,  when  and  how  it  was  fulfilled  ;  and  the 
true  origin  of  the  Sonship  is  ascertained.  But  we 
find  it  clearly  ascertained  when,  and  how  it  was 
fulfilled.  It  was  not  at  some  period  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world.  It  was  not  in  the  an- 
cient times  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  was  when 
the  fuhiess  of  time  was  come  for  the  Messiah 
to  appear.  The  text  is  applied  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
to  the  time  and  manner  of  Christ's  coming  in  the 
flesh  ;  or  his  miraculous  conception  ;  to  his  ioduc- 
tion  into  his  office,  as  the  Prophet,  and  especially 
the  High  Priest  of  his  people  5  and  to  his  resurrec- 
tion from  the  dead,  and  exaltation  to  glory.  To 
the  first  it  was  applied,  as  in  a  sense  literally  fulfil- 
led ;  and  therefore  in  a  sense  which  exhibits  the 
primary  reason  of  the  Mediator''s  being  called,  the 
Son  of  God.  And  to  the  two  other  occasions  a- 
bove  hiiiled,  the  noted  text  in  the  second  Psalm  is 
applied,  as  in  a  figurative  sense  fulfilled.  We  find 
the  humanity  of  Christ  begotten,  at  the  time  of 
his  coming  in  the  flesh.  We  also  find  the  Person 
of  the  Mediator  represented  as  begotten,  by  in- 
duction into  his  public  character,  especially  as 
Pligh  Priest.  And  we  find  him  represented  as 
•'  be;j;otten  from  the  dead.'*  and  to  his  inheritance 
in  glory,  when  he  passed  from  his  humiliation,  to 
his  exaltation. 

Where  the  character,  relation  and  circumstan- 
ces of  father  and  son  are  perfect,  the  relation  of 
3on  involves  the  three  ideas  of  generation,  filial 
obedience,  and  inheritance.  The  first  is  essential 
to  a  literal  son.  And  the  second  is  involved, 
where  the  character  and   circumstances  are  per- 


'22 


feet,  S'lch  a  son  will  certainly  obey  his  lather. 
This  is  essential  to  the  niiai  heart,  and  the  perfect 
filial  character.  And  inlieritin<i;  the  father's  prop- 
erty occurs  to  the  miiid.  with  no  less  force,  as  con- 
nected with  the  relation  of  a  son,  when  character 
and  circumstances  are  perfect.  And  to  these 
three  poi.jts,  relative  to  Christ,  the  Holy  Ghost 
clearly  applies  the  prediction  of  God's  begetting 
his  Sou.  Let  these  three  points  be  distinctly  no- 
ted. 

1.  God  miraculously  occasioned  the  concep- 
tion of  the  humanity  of  Christ.  He  thus  fulfilled 
the  prediction  in  the  second  Psalm.  And  hence 
Christ  is  the  Son  of  God.  This  is  the  primary, 
the  original  ground  of  Christ's  Son=hip  ;  as  is  fully 
decided  by  the  Angel  Gabriel  in  his  interview  w^ith 
Mary.  Before  1  note  this  interview,  I  shall  adduce 
one  preceding  scriptural  testimony  ;  that  the  lan- 
guage of  Gabriel  may  be  better  understood.  The 
fxlac  sacred  passage,  wiiere  the  relation  of  Father 
and  Son  between  tw^o  of  the  Persons  in  the  Trini- 
ty is  noticed,  is  in  2  Sam.  ii.  14.  "I  will  be  his 
Father,  and  he  shall  be  my  Son."  This  is  repeat- 
ed in  1  Chron.  xxii.  10.  "  He  shall  build  an  house 
for  my  name,  and  he  shall  he  my  Son,  and  I  will 
be  his  Father.''  This  was  spoken  primarily  of 
the  son  of  David.  It  related  typically  to  Solo- 
mon ;  but  really  to  Christ.  Hence  the  apostle,  in 
his  first  chapter  to  the  Hebrews,  when  he  was  ad- 
ducing various  sacred  passages  from  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, to  .ascertain  the  character  of  Christ,  quotes 
this  passable  ;  verse  5  ;  '•  And  again,  I  will  be  to 
him  a  Father,  and  he  shall  be  to  me  a  Son."  Up- 
on this  text  let  it  be  noted, 

When  God  spake  these  words  to  David,  it  was 
a  prediction  of  an  event  then  future,  as  it  related 
to  Christ,  as  much  as  it  was  in  relation  to  Solomon. 


23 

The  time  should  come  when  God  would  be  the 
Father  of  Christ,  and  Christ  should  be  God's  Son. 
No  indication  is  here  found  that  God  was  at  that 
time  the  literal  Father  of  the  Logos  then  in  heaven. 
There  is  no  such  indication  of  a  derivation  of 
Christ's  Divinity  from  God.  Yea,  its  being  pre- 
dicted as  a  future  event,  that  such  a  relation  should 
exist,  implied  that  no  such  relation  did  then  exist. 

The  Greek  of  this  quotation  from  Samuel  is  such 
as  well  to  accord  with  the  idea,  that  the  relation 
of  Father  and  Son,  between  these  persons  in  the 
Trinity,  was  to  be  a  constituted  relation  at  a  time 
then  future.  The  quotation  is  in  the  words  of  the 
Septuagint,  which  translation  the  Holy  Ghost  here, 
and  ofien  sanctioned  'by  quoting  it.  Ajid  a  hteral 
traiislation  of  the  Greek  text  is  as  follows  :  "  I  will 
be  to  him  (Christ)  for  a  Father ;  and  he  shall  be 
to  me  for  a  Son."*  This  phraseology,  no  doubt, 
gives  the  true  sense  of  Christ's  tiliation  ;  and  is 
diiFereiit  froin  what  would  most  naturally  express 
the  relation  of  Father  arid  Son,  had  this  relation 
been  then  actually  in  existence  ;  or  the  Divinity  of 
Christ  had  been  derived  as  a  Son  from  God. 

I  now  proceed  to  note  the  interview  of  Gabriel 
with  Mary.  Luke  i.  31 — 35.  "  And  behold  thou 
ehalt  conceive  in  thy  womb,  and  bring  forth  a  Son, 
and  shalt  call  his  name  Jesus.  He  shall  be  great, 
and  shall  be  called,  the  Son  of  the  Highest ;  and 
the  Lord  God  shall  give  unto  him  the  throne  of 
his  father  David  ;  and  he  shall  reign  over  the  house 
of  Jacob  forever  :  And  of  his  kingdom  there  shall 
be  no  end.  Then  said  Mary  unto  the  Angel,  How- 
shall  this  be,  seeing  I  know  not  a  man  ?  And  the 
Angel  answered    and  said  unto  her,  The  Holj 

*  "•  Eg;o  e«oomai  auto  eu  Patera ;  kai  autos  estai  moi  eif 
knion." 


54 

Ghost  Rhall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the 
Highest  shall  overshadow  thee  \  therefore,  also, 
that  Holy  thing,  that  shall  be  born  of  thee,  shall  be 
calleithe  Son  of  God."  We  may  believe  Gabriel 
had  in  view  here  the  noted  prediction  in  the  second 
Psalm  ;  "  Thou  art  my  Son  ;  to  day  have  I  be- 
gotten thee."  His  language  with  the  virgin  is  a 
comment  upon  this  very  passage.  As  though  he 
had  said,  The  time  has  now  arrived  when  God  is 
going  to  fulfil  upon  you,  the  most  highly  favored 
one  among  women,  this  his  ancient  prediction,  re- 
lative to  the  Messiah.  The  first  passage  in  the 
New  Testament  decides  this  point,  in  these  words; 
"  The  book  of  the  generation  of  Jesus  Christ." — 
q.  d.  I  am  now  introducing  the  history  of  God's  ful* 
filment  of  the  ancient  prediction  relative  to  his  be- 
getting his  Son  :  Upon  which  he  proceeds  to  note 
Sie  miraculous  conception,  as  the  first  and  essen- 
tial thing  in  "  the  generation  of  Jesus  Christ." 

Upon  the  words   of  Gabriel,   in   his  interview 
with  Mary,  let  the  following  things  be  noted  : — 

If  Christ  in  his  divine  nature  were  literally  the 
Son  of  God,  and  men  ought  thus  to  believe  ; — 
why  was  not  direct  information  here  given,  that  the 
Person  then  in  heaven,  and  who  was  about  to  con- 
descend to  be  born  of  Mary,  was  the  Son  of  God  ? 
Why  is  it  said  only,  that  the  holy  thing  to  be  born 
of  her,  should  be  called  the  Son  of  the  Highest, — 
the  Son  of  God  !  This  conversation  was  not  calcu- 
lated to  impress  an  idea,  that  the  Logos  then  in 
heaven  was  the  Son  of  God,  as  being  derived  from 
him  ;  but  that  the  time  was  then  at  hand,  when 
this  relation  of  Father  and  Son  should  be  actually 
formed.  God  was  now  about  to  be  to  the  divine 
Person,  who  had  engaged  to  become  a  Mediator, 
for  a  Father  ;  and  tliis  ;]' 'ine  Person  wae  about  to 
be  to  thi&  Fatlier,  for  a  Sotu 


25 

'^he  Angel  assigns  the  primary  reasou,  why  tht 
Logos  appearing  in  the  flesh  should  be  called  thfe 
Son  of  God.  "  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon 
thee,  and  the  power  of  the  Highest  shall  over- 
shadow thee  ;  therefore  also,  that  holy  thing  that 
shall  be  born  of  thee  shall  be  railed  the  Son  of 
God."  What  occasion,  or  right,  has  man  to  in- 
quire for  any  reason  anterior  to  the  one  so  natural- 
ly assigned  here  by  the  Angel,  as  the  origin  of  the 
Sonship  of  Christ  ?  Does  not  the  heavenly  Agent 
assign  the  primary  and  true  ground  of  his  Filiation? 
Who  shall  dare  to  assign  an  essential  ground  of 
Christ's  Sonship  anterior  to  this  ;  and  call  on  men 
to  receive  such  a  sentiment  as  an  important  article 
of  the .  Christian  faith  ?  One  might  think  that  if 
God  would  send  an  Angel  from  heaven,  to  give 
express  information  of  the  origin  of  Christ's  Filia- 
tion, it  might  be  sufficient  ;  that  man  might  con- 
fide in  a  point  so  decided  ;  and  that  he  would  not 
dare  to  call  on  others  to  believe  in  an  anterior 
ground  of  Christ's  Filiation.  ''  W^ho  has  been 
God's  counsellor,  or  taught  him  wisdom  ?"  If  it 
were  a  duty  to  believe  in  such  an  anterior  giound 
of  Sonship  in  Christ,  the  words  of  the  Angel  to 
Mary  are  sadly  calculated  to  mislead  ;  and  man 
would  need  to  be  cautioned  against  receiving  them 
in  their  most  evident  import. 

It  was  just  now  hinted,  that  in  the  beginning  of 
the  New  Testament,  we  learn  the  sense  of  the 
noted  passage.  Psalm  ii.  7,  relative  to  Christ's 
being  begotten  of  God.  Matt.  i.  1  5  "  The  book  of 
the  generation  of  Jesus  Christ." — i.  e.  The  book 
in  which  the  true  sense  of  Christ's  being  begotten 
of  God,  is  unfolded.  Here  then,  surely,  we  must 
look,  to  find  the  correct  view  of  his  divine  genera- 
tion. But  what  do  we  here  find  ? — an  account  of 
the  generation  of  Christ's  divine  nature,  before  the 


26 

foundation  of  the  world  ?  Not  a  word,  which  bearif 
the  least  resemblance  to  it.  But  the  writer  pro- 
ceeds and  gives  an  account  of  the  genealogy  and 
generation  of  his  humanity;  of  his  induction  into 
otiice  ;  and  his  glorification.  After  giving  his  lineal 
descent,  he  says  ;  "  Now  the  birth  of  Jesus  Christ 
was  on  this  wise  ;"  and  proceeds  to  note  the  mira- 
culous conception  of  his  humanity ;  and  circum- 
stances attending  ;  and  says  ;  "  Now  all  this  was 
done,  that  it  might  be  fulfilled,  which  was  spoken 
of  the  Lord  by  the  prophet,  saying,  "  Behold  a 
virgin  shall  be  with  child,  and  shall  bring  forth  a 
son,  and  they  shall  call  his  name  Immanuel,  which 
being  interpreted  is,  God  with  us."  Here  is  "  the 
generation  of  Jesus  Christ."  Vv  ho  will  presume 
to  say,  that  he  has  a  generation  far  more  ancient, 
and  more  important  than  what  is  here  given  ?  one 
that  respects  a  literal  producing  of  his  divine  na- 
ture, at  some  period  before  the  creation  of  the 
world  ?  Where  is  the  least  evidence  found  to  sup- 
port such  a  proposition  ?  I  have  never  been  able 
to  discover  it.  And  it  does  not  become  man  to  be 
wise  against,  nor  above  what  is  written.  The  ce- 
lebrated Bishop  Horsley  upon  this  subject  says. 
'^  The  Son  of  God  is  a  title,  which  belongs  to  our 
Lord  in  his  human  character,  describing  him  as 
that  man,  who  became  the  Son  of  God,  by  union 
with  the  Godhead."*  This  is  indeed  the  origin 
of  Christ's  Sonship,  as  is  taught  in  "  the  book  of 
the  generation  of  Jesus  Christ." 

The  prophet  enquires,  Isaiah  hii.  8,  relative  to 
Christ ;  "  Who  shall  declare  his  generation  ?" 
Upon  which  some  have  remarked,  that  Chrisfs 
generation  is  indescribable  ;  but  he  has  a  genera- 
tion, which  relates   to  his  divine  nature  ;  though 

*  Posth.  Sen  vol.  1.  p.  93,94.  Am.  Ed. 


27 

none  can  describe  it.  This  seems  plausible.  But 
it  needs  examination.  The  generation  of  Christ, 
in  this  passage,  does  not  relate  to  the  generation 
of  his  person,  or  nature,  divine  nor  human.  The 
sense  of  the  passage  we  learn  from  a  parallel  pass- 
age, Psalm  xxii.  30.  An  atfecting  account  of  Christ's 
sutierings  had  there  been  given.  And  to  console 
the  heart  of  the  pious  reader,  it  is  promised,  as  a 
blessed  consequence  of  his  passion,  that  "  a  seed 
shall  serve  him  ;  it  shall  be  accounted  to  the  Lord 
for  a  generation  ;"  i.  e.  a  numerous  progeny,  or 
race.  The  word  generation  is  often  used  in  this 
sense,  to  denote  a  progeny,  or  family.  The  poet 
gives  the  true  sense  of  this  passage  5 

"  A  numerous  offspring  must  arise. 

From  his  expiring  groans  ; 
They  shall  be  reckoned  in  his  eyes 

For  daughters  and  for  soixs." 

So  in  the  parallel  passage  under  consideration  in 
fsaiah  :  An  amazing  description  is  given  of  the 
sufferings  of  Christ.  And  the  prophet  adds  ;  "  He 
was  taken  from  prison  and  from  judgment ;  and 
who  shall  declare  his  generation  ?"  His  trials 
were  vast.  And  who  can  calculate  the  extensive 
and  glorious  consequences,  in  the  seed,  who  shall 
Berve  him,  and  who  shall  be  accounted  to  the  Lord 
for  a  generation  ?  This  appears  the  plain  sense  of 
the  passage.  Accordingly,  the  celebrated  Pool 
remarks  upon  it.  '•  Christ's  death  shall  not  be  un- 
fruitful. When  he  is  raised  from  the  dead,  he  shall 
have  a  spiritual  seed;  as  is  promised,  verse  10; 
When  he  shall  make  his  soul  an  oiiering  for  sin,  he 
shall  see  his  seed  : — A  numberless  multitude  of 
those  who  shall  believe  on  him,  and  be  regenerat- 
ed, and  adopted  by  him  into  the  jpumber  of  his 
children,"     Mr.  .Scott  (another  celSrated  expo- 


28 

-sitor)  says,  "  The  original  word  for  generati«n 
(here)  is  seldom  if  ever  used  in  this  sense  ;  (i.  e. 
©fa  proper  generation)  so  that  modern  interpret- 
ers generally  dissent  from  the  ancients." 

But  if  any,  after  all,  imagine,  that  the  text,  "Who 
ghall  declare  his  generation  ?"  must  relate  to  a  li- 
teral generation  of  the  person  of  Christ,  then  the 
answer  to  the  question,  Who  shall  declare  his  gen- 
eration ?  is  now  furnished  : — God  inspired  the 
evangelisti  to  declare  it ;  to  write  "  The  book  of 
the  generation  of  Jesus  Christ."  The  apostle 
teaches,  that  there  were  mysteries,  concerning 
Jesus  Christ,  hid  from  past  ages  ;  but  now  made 
manifest  under  the  gospel.  This  generation  of 
Christ,  if  it  must  be  understood  literally,  must  be 
one  of  those  mysteries,  now  revealed  by  the  evan- 
gehst,  and  the  conversation  of  the  Angel  with 
Mary.  But  no  derivation  of  Christ's  Divinity 
from  God  is  hinted  in  the  passage. 

2.  We  find  the  noted  prediction  of  the  genera- 
tion of  Christ,  on  which  his  Filiation  rests,  applied 
by  the  Holy  Ghost  (as  at  least  in  a  figurative  sense 
fulfilled)  at  his  designation  to  his  mediatorial  work, 
especially  that  of  our  great  High  Priest.  It  was  as 
the  Son  of  God,  that  Christ  must  obey  the 
Father,  and  atone  for  the  sins  of  the  world.  It 
was  to  be  the  Son,  whom  the  Father  (in  the  pleni- 
tude of  paternal  arVection)  could  not  spare  from 
death,  when  he  had  taken  the  place  of  the  sinner  ^ 
but  must  be  freely  delivered  up  for  us  all.  It  was 
a  Son,  who  must  be  sent  forth,  not  only  made  of  a 
woman,  but  made  under  the  law,  to  redeem  them 
who  were  under  the  law,  by  the  sacrifice  of  him- 
self, that  we  might  receive  the  adoption  of  sons.  It 
must  appear  that  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he 
sent  his  ordy  begotten  Son,  to  die  as  our  High 
Priest;  as  a  p-opitiation  fe»r  sin,  that  whosoever  be- 


29 

licveth  on  him  should  not  peri=h,  but  have  eveF- 
lasting  life.  Now  therefore,  the  designation  of  the 
Person  of  the  Messiah  to  this  course  of  filial  obe- 
dience and  suiferings,  must  be  represented  as  a 
further  and  figurative  fulfilment  of  the  noted  pre- 
diction i-n  the  second  Psalm.  Accordingly,  in 
Hcb.  V.  4,  after  speaking  of  men's  being  ordained 
of  God  as  high  priests,  who  can  have  compassion 
on  the  weak,  w^e  read  ;  "  And  no  man  taketh  this 
honor  unto  himself,  but  he  that  was  called  of  God, 
as  w^as  Aaron.  So  also  Christ  glorified  not  him- 
self to  be  made  an  High  Priest  •,  but  he  that  said 
unto  him,  Thou  art  my  Son,  tc-:lay  have  I  begotten 
thee."  Here  it  seems  as  though  the  designation 
of  Christ  to  the  work  of  High  Priest,  is  figuratively 
represented  as  God's  begetting  him.  Christ  made 
not  himself  an  High  Priest ;  but  He,  who  made  or 
constituted  him  thus, — it  seems  as  though  the  text 
were  going  to  say.  But  instead  of  expressing  this, 
it  is  expressed,  "  He  that  said  unto  him,  Thou  art 
my  Son,  to  day  have  I  begotten  thee."  The  be- 
getting, in  the  text  then,  seems  to  stand  exactly  in 
the  place  of  God's  constituting,  or  inducting  him. 
Which  shows  that  the  latter  is  figuratively  repre- 
sented by  the  former.  Accordingly,  w^hen  Christ 
was  inducted  into  his  public  ministry  by  baptism, 
and  the  holy  unction  performed  by  the  Holy 
Ghost, — the  voice  from  heaven  came,  in  allusion 
to  the  same  noted  prediction  in  the  second  Psalm, 
"  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  w^hom  I  am  well 
pleased."  q.  d.  This  Person,  in  his  humanity,  I 
have  begotten  in  the  womb  of  the  virgin  ;  and  his 
Person,  as  Mediator,  I  have  now  figuratively  be- 
gotten into  his  oflice  of  High  Priest  ;  and  in  this 
his  office  I  am  well  pleased,  and  am  ready  to  re^ 
concile  the  world  to  myself.  He  is  a  "  Priest  foj- 
ever,  after  the  order  of  Melchisedec." 
3*^ 


so 

3.  We  find  the  noted  prediction  of  the  genera- 
tion of  Christ,  on  which  his  Fihation  rests,  apphed 
\y  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  in  some  figurative  sense  ful- 
filled, by  his  resurrection  from  the  dead,  and  in- 
duction to  his  inheritance.  Christ,  after  having 
been  delivered  for  our  offences,  was  raised  again 
for  our  justification,  by  the  power  of  God,  and  was 
exalted  to  his  inheritance  in  glory,  as  the  Heir  of 
•ill  things.  And  upon  this  event  the  apostle  says  ; 
Acts  xiii.  32,  33  ;  "  And  we  declare  unto  you  glad 
ridings,  how  that  the  promise,  which  was  made  un- 
to the  fathers,  God  hath  fulfilled  the  same  unto  us 
their  children,  in  that  he  hath  raised  up  Jesus 
again  ;  as  it  is  also  written  in  the  second  Psalm, 
Thou  art  my  Son  ;  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee." 
Here  again  the  Holy  Ghost  announces  a  fulfilment 
o{  the  noted  prediction  of  the  generation  of  Christ, 
in  an  event  subsequent  to  his  coming  in  the  flesh. 
He  applies  it,  as  receiving  a  figurative  and  a  final 
filfilmeait,  in  the  resurrection  and  exaltation  of 
Chi  Jst  to  his  inheritance  of  glory.  Christ  was  be- 
^oUen — produced — brought  from  the  regions  of 
the  dead,  to  the  throne  of  the  universe,  at  his 
Father's  right  hand,  as  the  Heir  of  all  things. 
This  was  the  third  and  last  step  in  that  series  of 
events,  which  v/as  to  present  the  Son  of  God,  the 
Ring  of  Israel,  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  as  com- 
plete in  his  mediatorial  kingdom, — in  the  possess- 
i.on  of  his  inheritance  of  glory.  And  it  is  noted 
as  the  finishing  of  the  fulfilment  of  the  noted  pre- 
diction in  the  second  Psalm.  Accordingly,  Christ 
is  called,  Rev.  i.  5,  "  the  first  begotten  of  the 
dead."  And  in  Col.  i.  18,''  the  first  born  from 
the  dead."  Here  the  same  figure  is  pursued. 
Christ  v/as  the  resurrection  and  the  life  ;  the  first 
fruits  of  them  that  slept;  the  rising  of  the  Head 
fr€)m  the  to^ib.  as  an  eiiruest  that  a-U   tlie  me  in- 


31 

Bers  shall  follow.  And  this  event,  of  Chrisf^ 
rising  and  exaltation,  is  noted  as  the  finishing  of 
his  generation  ;  the  closing  scene  of  the  fulfilment 
of  Psalm  ii.  7.  Accordingly  a  declaration  is  made, 
as  it  were,  at  the  grave's  mouth,  of  his  Filiation.. 
in  the  following  words  :  "  Declared  to  be  the  Son 
of  God  with  power,  by  his  resurrection  from  the 
dead."  And  a  declaration  had  before  been  made 
of  the  same  thing,  by  anticipation,  on  the  mount, 
when  Jesus  was  transfigured.  There,  by  prolep- 
sis,  the  curtain  of  heaven  was,  as  it  were  drawn, 
and  Jesus  was  presented,  to  chogen  witnesses,  in 
his  robe  of  glory,  as  though  the  work  was  done, 
and  he  had  readied  the  inheritance  and  the  throne. 
And  the  voice,  from  the  excellent  Majesty  above, 
declared  that  Filiation,  which  rested  on  his  being 
begotten  of  God  ;  ''  This  is  my  beloved  Son  ; 
hear  ye  him."  Here  is  the  Person  exhibited,  by 
anticipation,  as  in  glory,  and  completely  that  Son 
of  God,  in  his  Father's  inheritance,  so  long  pre- 
dicted and  expected. 

In  Psalm  Ixxxix.  19 — 37,  we  have  farther  light 
upon  this  subject.  Christ  is  here  predicted  un- 
der the  name  of  David,  his  type.  *•  Then  thou 
speakest  in  vision  to  thy  Holy  One  ;  thou  saidst,  I 
have  laid  help  on  one  mighty  to  save  ;  I  have  ex- 
alted one  chosen  out  of  the  people."  A  descrip- 
tion of  Christ,  and  his  kingdom,  follows.  In  verse 
36  it  is  said  ;  '•  He  shall  cry  unto  me.  Thou  art 
my  Father,  my  God,  and  the  Rock  of  \ny  Salva- 
tion." His  being  begotten,  and  his  consequent 
Filiation  then  follows.  "  I  will  make  him  my  first- 
born, higher  than  the  kings  of  the  earth."  In  the 
Hebrew  the  mi/  before  first-born  is  not  found. 
The  sense  is  not  this,  I  will  make  him,  who  is  mj 
first-born,  higher  than  the  kings  of  the  earth, 
^ut  the  plain  sense  is  as  follows  j    I  will  make— 


32 


£-onstitute — or  beget  him  fiist-born  ; — alluding  to 
his  beiiig  heir  of  all  things  ;  and  hence  it  is  added, 
"  higher  than  the  kings  of  the  earth."  Here  the 
event  as  in  Psalm  ii.  7,  was  future.  It  was  a  thing 
to  be  accomplished,  when  tlie  fuhiess  of  time 
should  come,  for  God  to  be  manifest  in  the  flesh. 
Then  it  was  that  God  would  beget  his  Son,  and 
make  the  Mediator  tirst-born,  and  exalt  him  to 
glor>^,  as  King  of  kings,  and  Lord  of  lords. 

Thus  the  passages  in  the  Old  Testament,  which 
speak  of  Christ's  Filiation,  and  the  origin  of  it,  are 
bythe  Spirit  of  Inspiration  construed  as  predictions 
of  events  then  future,  a!id  actually  fulfilled  after 
the  fulness  of  time  came  for  God  to  be  manifest  in 
the  flesh.  And  never  is  the  least  intimation  given, 
that  those  passages  relate  to  any  derivation  of  the 
Divinity  of  Christ  from  God,  at  some  period  then 
past.  Nor  do  they  admit  of  such  a  construction. 
We  find  no  hint  of  such  a  thing.  The  apostle 
says,  Gal.  iv,  4  ;  ^' But  when  the  fulness  of  time 
was  come,  God  sent  forth  his  Son,  made  of  a  wo- 
man ;  made  under  the  law,  to  redeem  them  that 
were  underthe law, that  we  might  receive  the  adop- 
tion of  sons."  Here  we  learn  how  Christ  beccme 
God's  Son.  He  was  '•  made  of  a  woman  :"  and 
"  made  uiider  the  law."  He  was  God's  Son,  be- 
cause God  be^jat  his  humanity  ;  and  because  he 
was  made  a  Priest  under  the  law,  to  obey  and  to 
atone.  The  many  scriptures  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, which  speak  of  God  as  the  Father  of  Christ ; 
and  which  speak  of  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God,  and 
as  the  begotten  of  the  Father,  must  surely  be  so 
construed  as  to  accord  with  the  sense  of  those 
primitive  texts,  in  the  Old  Testament,  which  have 
been  noticed  *,  and  which  the  Holy  Ghost  has  de- 
cided, do  apply  to  the  coming  of  Christ  in  the 
flesh,  and  to  subsequent  events,  which  have  been 


Hoted.  We  are  thus  furnished  with  an  infallible 
clue,  bj  which  to  tind  the  true  sense  of  the  many 
passages  in  the  New  Testament,  which  relate  to  the 
Sonship  of  Christ.  They  can  have  no  relation  to 
any  event  before  the  world  was  ;  such  as  a  deriva- 
tion of  the  Divinity  of  our  Saviour  from  God. 
They  can  have  no  relation  to  any  Filiation  of  Christ, 
not  founded  in  that  divine  generation  of  him  in 
the  second  Psalm,  which  has  been  explained. 

Objection,  But  is  not  this  giving  up  a  great  ar- 
gument, on  which  reliance  has  been  made  by 
Trinitarians,  to  prove  the  real  Divinity  of  Jesus 
Christ? 

Answer,  We  have  conclusive  arguments  enough, 
to  prove  the  eternal  and  proper  Divinity  of  Christ. 
We  need  no  lame  arguments.  The  supposition, 
that  Christ  in  his  highest  nature  is  derived  from 
God.  is  so  far  from  proving  his  real  Divinity,  that 
it  fully  disproves  it.  It  supposes  the  Divinity  of 
Christ  to  be  intinitely  posterior,  and  infinitely  infe- 
rior to  the  Father  ;  and  therefore,  that  he  is  at  an 
infinite  remove  from  being  truly  God.  The  truth 
of  this  deduction  is  demonstrated,  prima  facie,  in 
its  own  statement.  The  idea,  that  as  a  man  prop- 
agates his  offspring,  who  becomes  a  real  man, 
equal  to  his  father ;  so  God  has  propagated  his  di- 
vine offspring,  who  has  become  really  God  ;  is  aa 
awful  absurdity  !  The  heathen  used,  to  imagine 
that  their  gods  propagated  their  various  species. 
Families  of  gods  existed  in  the  imaginations  of  the 
poets.  And,  what  was  very  congenial  to  this  opin- 
ion, they  supposed  their  gods  to  have  had  goddes- 
ses ;  and  that  these  celestial  pairs  were  possessed 
of  all  the  passions  incident  to  man.  Being  famil- 
iar with  these  opinions  from  childhood,  it  would 
not  have  been  strange,  if  some  of  the  primitive 
proselytes  to  Christianity,  hearing  that  Christ  is 


34 

Ae  Son  of  God,  should  annex  this  idea  to  the 
phrase,  and  imagine  that  the  divine  Person  of 
Christ  was  hterally  derived  from  God,  as  a  son 
from  his  father,  in  some  mysterious  sense,  while 
yet  Christ  was  eternal.  But  such  a  derivation  of 
a  Person  truly  divine,  is  impossible  ;  as  I  shall  en- 
deavour to  show  in  a  subsequent  section.  ■• 


i,^mz(^^  m^ 


FURTHER  REMARKS  RELATIVE  TO  THE  SOXSHIP 
OF  CHRIST. 

If  the  Divinit}'  of  Christ  were  literally  propaga- 
ted by  the  Most  High,  in  some  period  before  the 
creation  of  the  world  ;  and  this  be  an  important 
point  to  be  believed  ;  why  was  it  not  clearly  re- 
vealed in  the  Old  Testament?  How  strange,  that 
we  should  tind  there  so  little,  if  any  clear  evidence, 
that  the  relation  of  Father  and  Son  then  actaally 
existed  between  the  two  tirst  Persons  in  the  sacred 
Trinity  !  We  find  those  two  Persons  (and  the 
three  divine  Persons  in  the  Godhead)  abundantly 
noted  in  the  Old  Testament.  But  we  have  no 
conclusive  evidence  in  that  sacred  book,  that  a 
literal  Father  and  Son  then  existed  among  them. 
The  Mediator  himself  is  there  predicted,  as  the 
"  everlasting  Father ;"  Isai.  ix.  6  ;  yet  not  so  in 
the  economy  of  Grace.  In  the  Hebrew  it  is, 
*'  The  Father  of  eternity  ;"  which  shows  that  he 
is  the  infinite  God  indeed  ! 

In  the  forenoted  text,  2  Sam.  vii.  14  ;  we  have 
no  intimation,  (as  has  been  remarked,)  that  God 
was  then  actually  Father  to  the  Logos,  or  Messiah, 
in  Heaven.  But  that  this  relation  should  be  man- 
ifested, in  due  time.  In  the  other  text,  Psalm  ii. 
7,  it  has  been  shown  that  the  relation  of  Father 
and  Son  was  not  revealed  as  existing  at  that  time, 
•niy  in  the  diviiie  purpose.     And  that  this  divine 


36 

purpose  was  primarily  fulfilled  when  Christ's  hu- 
manity was  divinely  begotten. 

lu  the  prediction  noted,  Psalm  Ixxxix.  27, 
Christ's  Sonship  was  a  relation  then  future.  "  I 
will  make  him  first-born."  "  He  shall  cry  unto 
me,  Thou  art  my  Father."  By  many  titles  the 
Mediator  was  known  in  the  Old  Testament ;  hut 
never  by  the  title  of  Son,  as  being  then  actually 
the  Son  of  God.  Christ  was  known  as  the  Seed 
of  the  woman  (who  was  to  come)  the  Seed  of 
Abraiiam,  Shiloh,  the  Shepherd,  the  Stone  of  Is- 
rael, the  Star  to  arise,  the  Prophet  to  be  raised  up, 
the  Lord^s  Anointed,  Immanuel,  or  God  with  us, 
the  Messiah,  the  Messenger  of  the  covenant,  the 
Angel,  the  Angel  of  God's  presence,  the  Ancient 
of  days,  the  Branch,  the  Sun  of  righteousness,  the 
Desire  of  all  nations,  the  chief  corner  Stone, 
Elect,  Precious,  God's  Servant,  Wonderful,  Coun- 
sellor, the  mighty  God.  the  everlasting  Father,  the 
Prince  of  Peace,  a  Leader  and  Commander  of  his 
people,  a  Coveiiai-t,  Michael,  the  Lord,  Jehovah, 
the  Jehovah  of  hosts,  the  Redeemer,  the  Holy 
One,  a  Refuge,  a  Rod  from  the  stem  of  Jesse,  I 
Am,  I  Am  that  J  Am,  the  God  of  Abraham,  the 
God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob,  the  God  of 
your  fathers. — These  last  mentioned  titles  of  God, 
the  Anfjel  of  the  Lord,  in  the  burning  bush,  assum- 
ed, as  will  be  noted  in  a  future  section.  Seme  of 
these  titles  indicated  what  the  Mediator  then  was  ; 
the  infinite,  eternal  God  :  And  others,  what  he 
should  be  demonstrated  to  be,  when  he  should  be 
manifest  in  tliC  iiesh,  and  known  as  the  Son  of  God. 
But  among  all  his  many  titles,  he  was  never  repre- 
sented, as  then  actually  the  Son  of  God  in  heaven. 
Christ  was  then  no  more  actually  the  Son  of  God^ 
than  he  was  actually  the  seed  of  the  woman,  the 
seed  of  Abraham,  the  seed  of  David,  the  Branch, 


37 

or  any  other  name,  fulfilled  only  when  he  appeaur 
ed  in  the  flesh. 

Two  texts,  which  have  heen  supposed  by  some 
to  speak  of  Christ,  as  being  then  the  Son  of  God, 
I  think  have  been  misapplied.  Nebuchadnezzar 
exclaimed,  relative  to  the  pei-sons,  whom  he  be- 
held in  his  fiery  furnace,  that  the  form  of  the  fourth 
was  hke  unto  the  Son  of  God.  But  who  could 
this  heathen  idolater  mean,  by  the  Son  of  God  ? 
-He  must  have  meant,  some  son  of  some  god. 
What  did  he  know  of  the  God  of  Israel  ?  or  of  the 
expected  Messiah  ?  He  believed  in  heathen  gods 
and  goddesses  ;  and  in  their  propagation  of  their 
offspring.  And  his  guilty  conscience  and  frighten- 
ed imagination  suggested  to  him,  that  this  miracu- 
lous deliverer  of  the  victims  of  his  impious  rage, 
must  be  a  son  of  a  god  ;  probably  of  the  God  of 
Israel.  But  we  cannot  learn  from  this  confession 
of  a  heathen,  who  then  had  his  vassal  sub  ects 
convened  before  him  to  worship  a  golden  god  ; — 
and  had  just  tauntingly  said  to  them.  Who  is  that 
god.  that  shall  deliver  you  out  of  my  hands  ?  that 
the  Messiah  of  the  Jews  was  known,  as  being  then 
actually  the  Son  of  God  ;  and  so  familiarly  known 
too,  as  that  this  idolater  in  a  heathen  land,  would 
recognize  him  at  first  sight,  and  so  readily  speak  of 
him  under  this  title.  To  me  this  is  utterly  in- 
credible. 

In  Prov.  XXX.  4,  we  read,  "  Who  hath  ascended 
up  into  heaven,  or  descended  ?  Who  hath  gather- 
ed the  wind  in  his  fists  ?  Who  hath  bound  the 
waters  in  a  garment  ?  Who  hath  established  all 
the  ends  of  the  earth  ?  What  is  his  name  ?  Or 
what  is  his  son's  name,  if  tliou  canst  tell  ?"  Some 
may  imagine  the  son  here  means  the  Son  of  God  ? 
But  I  think  this  is  not  the  case.  The  subject  of 
the  inquiry,  in  this  text,  is  not  God,  but  m^^*^ 
4 


38 

VVIiat  man  can  you  imagine  has  done  these  things? 
Tliis  appears  evident  from  the  words  of  Christ, 
John  iii.  13,  where,  in  allusion  to  this  text,  he 
says,  "  No  man  hath  ascended  up  to  heaven,  but 
he  that  came  down  from  heaven,  even  the  Son  of 
man,  who  is  in  heaven."  And  as  the  subject  of 
infjuiry,  in  that  text,  is  a  man;  so  the  son  spoken 
of  must  be  the  son  of  the  same  man.  Accord- 
ingly, an  eminent  expositer  gives  this  paraphrase 
upon  the  passage :  "  l(  thou  think  there  be  any 
such  man,  who  can  do  these  things,  I  challenge 
thee  to  produce  his  name.  Or  if  he  be  long  since 
dead,  and  gone  out  of  the  world,  produce  the 
name  of  any  of  his  posterity,  who  can  assure  us 
that  their  progenitor  was  such  8  person."  But  if 
the  Son  in  this  passage  mean  Christ,  he  was  then 
a  Son  only  by  prolepsis,  as  he  was  the  son  of  Da- 
vid :  because  he  was  to  appear  in  this  character. 

In  Hosea  xi.  1,  we  read,  "  When  Israel  was  a 
child,  then  I  loved  him,  and  called  my  Son  out  of 
Egypt."  So  far  as  this  relates  to  Christ,  and  is 
applied  to  him  by  the  evangelist,  "  Out  of  Egypt 
have  1  called  my  Son,"  it  is  a  prolepsis  ;  or  a  pre- 
vious calling  of  Christ,  God's  Son,  because  h^ 
was  to  be  known  as  the  Son  of  God,  when  the 
passage,  as  it  related  to  Christ,  should  be  fulfilled, 
by  his  actually  coming  from  Egypt.  But  the  text 
in  Hosea,  to  which  the  evangelist  alludes,  conveys 
no  idea,  that  the  Messiah  in  heaven,  when  the 
words  were  spoken,  was  God's  Son.  And  the  al- 
lusion of  the  evangelist  to  the  words,  above  noted, 
does  not  convey  such  an  idea.  The  word  son 
there  literally  relates  to  Israel,  who  was  God's 
son,  his  first-born  ;  see  Exodus  iv.  22,  23. 

The  above  remark  may  suggest  the  true  expo- 
sition of  the  only  three  remaining  texts,  in  the 
Old  Testament,  in  which  the  Mediator  may  by 


39 

any  be  supposed  to  be  spoken   of,  as  the  Son  of 
God.     These  three  relate   imniediatel}  to  Gospel 
times,  when  Christ  was  to  be  known  as  the  Son  of 
God.     Isai.  ix.  G,  "  For  unto  us  a  cliild  is  born  ; 
unto  us  a  Son  is  given  ;  and  the  government  shall 
be  upon  his  shoulder." — Surely  this  related  to  the 
time  when  Christ  should  be  manifested  in  the  flesh. 
And  if  the  Son.  in  this  text,  mean  Son  of  God,  it 
seems  to  me  so  far  from  indicating,  that  he,  in  his 
divine  nature   then   in  heaven,   was   liteially  the 
Son  of  God,  that  it  clearly  indicates,  that  he  was 
not  to  be  known  as  really  the  Son  of  God,  till  lie 
was  the   "  Child   born."     '*  Unto  us  a  Child  is 
born;  unto  us  a   Son  is  given."     Ezek.  xxi.  10, 
predicting  the  destruction  of   the  Jews  first  by 
the  king  of  Babylpn,  but  ultimately  by  God's  gre.at 
and  sharp  sword,  the  Romans,  it  is  said,  "  It  con- 
temneth  the  rod  of  my  son  as  every  tvee."^^     1  ap- 
prehend  the   term  son  here  has  no  relation  to 
Christ,  but  to  the  Jews.     Israel  was  called  God's 
son  ;  Exodus  iv.   22,   23  ;  "  Thus  shalt  thou  say 
tmto  Pharaoh,  Thus  saith  the  Lord,   Israel  is  my 
son,  even  my  first-born.     And  I  say  unto  thee, 
Let  my  son  go,  that  he  may  serve  me.     And  if 
thou  refuse  to  let  him  go,  behold  I  will   slay  thy 
son,  even  thy  first-born."     It  is  in  immediate  al- 
lusion to  this  passage,  that   we   read   in  the  fore- 
cited  passage  in  Hosea.  "  When  Israel  was  a  child, 
then  I  loved  him,  and  called  my,  son  out  of  E^^ypt." 
And  it  is  natural  to  suppose  the  passage  under 
consideration,  "  It  contemneth  the  rod  of  my  son 
as  every  tree,"  is  an  allusion   to  the   same   teyA, 
and  means  the  Jews.     The  translators  ur;dejstood 
it  so;  and  hence   wrote  the   word   son  without  a 
capital.    But  should  any  say,  it  may  mean  Christ : 
1  answer ;  It  may  typically,   and  by  a  prolepsis. 
Christ  was  known  as  the  Son  of  God,  when  tl>e 


40 

text  was  faliilled  !n  the  destruction  of  the  Jews 
by  God^s  sword,  the  Romans.  And  both  tl^ 
Jews  and  the  Romans  did,  at  that  time,  contemn 
Christ. 

The  only  remaining  iex.t  in  the  Old  Testament, 
where  Christ  is  spoken  of  as  a  Son,  is  most  evi- 
dently a  prolepsis  ;  speaking  of  him  as  Son,  be- 
cause he  would  be  known,  as  the  Son  of  God, 
when  that  prophecy  should  be  fulfilled.  This  is 
in  the  second  Psalm.  This  Psalm  is  a  prediction 
of  Christ- s  coming  in  the  flesh,  and  of  gospel 
times.  The  apostle  applies  the  beginning  of  the 
Psalm  to  the  raging  of  the  enemies  of  Christ  under 
the  Gospel.  Acts  iv.  25,  "  Who  by  the  mouth  of 
thy  servant  David  hath  said,  Why  do  the  heathen 
rage,  and  the  people  imagine  vain  things.  The 
kings  of  the  earth  stood  up,  and  their  rulers  were 
gathered  together  against  the  Lord,  and  against 
his  Christ."  He  proceeds  to  note  the  conduct  of 
Herod,  Pontius  Pilate,  and  the  people  of  Israel, 
in  their  treatment  of  Christ,  as  forming  a  fulfil- 
ment of  the  passage.  The  Psalmist  proceeds  to 
predict  the  impious  language  of  tlie  enemies  of 
Christ,  both  of  the  infidel  Jews,  and  of  the  atheis- 
tical Antichrist  of  the  last  days  ;  to  predict  the 
extent  of  Christ's  kingdom,  to  the  uttermost  parts 
of  the  earth  ;  (an  event  never  fulfilled  under  the 
Old  Testament)  and  to  predict  Christ's  dashing 
his  enemies  to  pieces  with  a  rod  of  iron  ;  first  the 
Jews,  and  then  the  antichristian  nations,  as  we 
may  conceive ;  upon  which  the  nations,  at  that 
period  of  judgments,  are  warned,  and  exhorted  to 
"  serve  the  Lord  with  fear,  and  rejoice  with  trem- 
bling :  kiss  the  Son  ;  lest  he  be  angry,  and  ye  pe^ 
rish." — The  whole  was  a  prediction  of  events 
under  the  Gospel,  when  Christ  is  to  be  known,  as 
the  Son  of  ^od.     He  is  in  this  passage  called  the 


41 

Son,  in  relation  to  that  then  far  distant  event;  pre- 
cisely as  in  verse  7th,  hefore  cited,  his  appearing 
in  the  flesh  was  predicted.  But  no  passage  in  this 
Psalm  does  by  any  means  decide,  tliatthe  ?tlessiah, 
then  in  heaven,  was,  in  his  divine  Person,  literally 
the  Son  of  God.  And  we  find  no  intimation  of 
such  a  thing  in  the  Old  Testament.  But  how  can 
this  be  accounted  for,  if  the  Person  of  the  Media- 
tor, then  in  heaven,  were  literally  the  Son  of  God? 

The  two  first  Persons  in  the  Godhead  are,  in  the 
Old  Testament,  abundantly  known  by  other  titles  : 
but  never  by  Father  and  Son.  They  are  called 
God,  and  the  Lord  ;  or  God.  and  Jehovah  ;  God, 
and  Immanuel;  the  Lord,  and  his  Anointed;  God, 
and  the  Angel  of  the  covenant  ;  God,  and  the  Je- 
hovah of  hosts;  God,  and  the  Captain  of  the 
Lord's  hosts  ;  God,  and  the  Angel  of  his  presence; 
but  never  the  Father  and  the  Son.  The  exhibition 
of  this  relation  was  deferred  to  the  time  of  Im- 
manuePs  appearing  in  the  flesh.  Then  it  was, 
that  he  should  be  made  first-born.  Then  the  in- 
fallible voice  from  on  high  should  testify  to  the  ful- 
filment of  the  decree,  of  God's  begetting  him,  and 
owning  him  for  a  Son.  These  things  do  not  seem 
to  indicate,  that  a  belief  in  an  actual  Sonship  or  de- 
rivation of  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  is  to  be  an  ar- 
ticle of  the  Christian  faith.  Had  it  been  thus,  we 
might  expect  to  have  found  it  clearly  taught  in  the 
Old  Testament,  and  that  the  Son  of  God  would 
have  been  the  great  title,  by  which  Christ  would 
have  been  known  under  that  dispensation. 

The  title  of  Son,  under  the  gospel,  is  only  on^ 
among  many  of  the  mediatory  titles  of  Christ. 
And  is  much  more  frequently  spoken,  ©f,  under 
some  of  his  other  titles,  than  under  that  of  thefSon 
of  God.  He  is  called  the  Son  of  man  nearly 
twice  as  often.  John  (who  it  is  said  wrote  his 
4^ 


42 

gospel  with  a  peculiar  view  to  evince  the  Divinity 
of  Christ)  tirst  calls  him  the  Logos,  the  Word,  who 
(he  says)  was  in  the  beginning  with  God,  and  was 
God  ;  and  by  whom  all  things  were  made.     AVhy 
did  he  not  here,  when  introducing  the  very  Person, 
whose  Divinity  he  was  going  to  substantiate,  (and 
did  in  the   very  first  sentence  assert.)  gi  ■  e  him  his 
great  and  appropriate  title,  the  Son  of  God,  if  his 
divine  nature    were   actually  derived  ?  If  such  a 
Sonship  were  indeed  Christ's  highest  glory,  ^nd 
were  to  be  a  prime  article  in   the  Christian  faith, 
why  should  we  not  here  at  least,  find  it  to  be  the 
title,  under  which  the  Person  of  the  Messiah  is  in- 
troduced ?    Is  it  not   natural  to  expect,  that  John 
v/ould  here  give  to  Christ  his  highest  title  ?     The 
title   here  actually  given  by  John  to  Christ.  v.hen 
he  informs,  that  he  was  with  God.  and  was  God.  is 
the  same  with  that  given  to  Christ,  as  One  in  the 
Trinity.  1  John  v.  7  :  "•  For  there  are  three  that 
bear  record  in  heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  these  three  are  One.***  And 
the  title  hei-e  given  is  the  same  with  that,   under 
which  Christ  appears,  when,  as  the  Captain  of  sal- 
vation, he  is  riding    forth  upon    his  white  horse  of 
victory,  at   the  battle  of  the  great  day  of  God  Al- 
rniiihtv.  Rev.   xix.  \3  ;  "  And   his  name  is  called 
the  Word  of  God.^' 

But  v/hen  this  divine  Logos  appeared  in  the 
flesli,  then  he  was  to  be  known  as  the  Son  of  God. 
Then  he  was  to  be  exhibiled,  as  being  begotten  of 
(jiod.  and  made  God's  first-born.  Accordingly 
from  that  time  he  was  often  called  the  Son  of  God. 
A.nd  thus  John  proceed<  to  inform  ;  "  The  AVord 
was  made  flesh,  and  dwelt  among  us,  and  we  be- 

*  The  objection^  against  the  authority  cf  •l.-s  lexl  wilt  be 
xjonsiJere?!  ii»  their  ylaoe,  in  a  iuture  =ect.if-P. 


43 

licld  his  glorj,  as  the  glory  of  the  only  begotten  of 
the  Father,  full  of  grace  and  truth."  Here  the 
writer  was  preparing  the  way  to  have  this  Logos, 
after  he  appeared  in  the  flesh,  called  the  Son  of 
God,  as  he  aftenvards  often  calls  him.  He  then 
says,  ''No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time  :  the 
only  begotten  Son,  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the 
Father,  he  hath  declared  him.*  The  Logos,  now 
manifest  in  the  flesh,  and  who  has  thus  become  the 
only  begotten  of  God,  he  hath  declared  God. 
Here  John  gives  the  transition, from  the  Mediator's 
being  the  Logos  in  heaven,  one  w^ith  God,  and 
really  God  ;  to  his  becoming  God  manitcst  in  the 
flesh,  and  known  as  the  Son  of  God.  John,  after 
this,  often  speaks  of  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God. 

These  remarks  will  unfold  the  sense  of  some 
other  scriptures,  which,  at  first  view,  seem  to  im- 
ply, that  Christ  w^as  known  as  actually  the  Son  of 
God.  before  his  incarnation. 


*  "  No  man  hath  seen  Gotl  at  any  time.''  This  clause  fur- 
nishes no  objectiun  agaiust  the  real  anJ  },roj  cr  I)ivinity  ot" 
Jesus  Christ.  Fare  Deity  is  an  iclinite  Spirit,  invisible.  The 
Divinity  of  Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  well  as  that  ot 
the  Father,  is  thus  :  No  man  ever  saw  the  Divinity  of  Christ, 
with  the  bodily  eye.  But  Christ  has  assumed  a  medium,  which 
men  have  literally  beheld.  We  see  not  a  human  soul.  But 
we  see  a  man  by  the  medium  of  his  body.  The  divine  Logos, 
when  he  would  appear  to  man,  under  the  Old  Testament,  ever 
■assumed  some  miraculous  appearance,  as  a  medium,  which 
man  might  behold.  This,  as  well  as  his  body,  in  after  days, 
was  seen  ;  while  yet  it  is  a  truth,  that  "  No  man  hath  seen  God 
at  any  time."  And  yet  Christ  is  the  true  and  the  great  GcJ. 
Christ  declared,  "^  He  that  hath  seen  me,  hath  seen  the  Fatlier 
also."  And  of  the  Jev/s  ; — ^- They  have  both  seen  and  hated 
both  me  and  my  Father."  Yet,  "  No  man  hath  seen  God  at 
any  time."  The  seeing  in  this  latter  text  means  soeing  pure 
Divinity  with  the  bodily  eye.  But  the  Jews  had  seen  Chriit 
and  the  Father,  in  the  miracles  and  wonder?,  which  had  evinced 
tiieir  Divinity  and  the  truth  of  their  doctrines.  Those  texts 
then  are  no  contradiction.  And  no  evidence  is  furnished  ir\ 
them  ;!gai;:st  the  pure  Divinity  of  Christ; 


44 

'■*  Unto  the  Son,  God  saith,  Thy  throne  O  God, 
is  forever  and  ever."  This,  at  first  thought,  seems 
to  imply,  tliat  Christ  was  the  Son,  when  God  thus 
addressed  him  :  "  Unto  tlie  Son,  God  saith" — 
The  sense  of  the  passage  is  this  :  aUnto  the  divine 
Logos  in  heaven,  but  now  known  as  the  Son,  God 
saith.  Tiiis  is  evident  from  the  passage  in  the  Old 
Testament  here  quoted,  where  God  thus  addressed 
the  Person  now  called  the  Son.  The  passage  is 
Psalm  xlv.  6  ;  "  Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  forever 
and  ever  ;  the  sceptre  of  thy  kingdom  is  a  right 
sceptre."  Neither  in  this  passage,  nor  in  its  con- 
texts, is  any  mention  made  of  a  Son.  The  Me- 
diator is  there  spoken  of  as  the  King,  fairer  than 
the  children  of  men  ;  and  the  most  Mighty.  Bat 
now  being  known  as  the  Son  of  God,  the  apostle 
says,  "  Unto  the  Son,  God  saith" — i.  e.  unto  Da- 
vid's King,  who  is  the  Most  Mighty,  but  now  known 
as  the  Son,  God  spake  the  words. 

Again  we  read  ;  "  When  he  bringeth  his  first 
Begotten  into  the  world,  he  saith.  And  let  all  the 
Angels  of  God  worship  him."  This,  it  may  be 
said,  seems  to  imply,  that  Christ  was  God's  first 
Begotten  before  he  was  brought  into  the  world  ; 
or  his  divine  Person  was  the  Son  of  God,  while  in 
heaven,  before  his  incarnation.  But  the  passage 
quoted  teaches  no  such  thing  ;  therefore  the  quo- 
tation can  mean  no  such  thing.  The  passpge  quot- 
ed is  in  Psalm  xcvii.  where  nothing  is  found  of  a 
first  Begotten.  The  Person  there,  who  in  the 
quotation  to  the  Hebrews,  is  called  God's  first  Be- 
gotten, is  called  the  Lord,  or  Jehovah,  reigning 
with  clouds  and  darkness  round  about  him,  but 
righteousness  and  judgment  being  the  habitation 
of  his  throne.  "  A  fire  goeth  before  him,  and 
burneth  up  his  enemies  round  about.  His  light- 
ning lightened   the  wdrld  5  the  earth  saw  it  and 


46 

trembled.  The  hills  melted  like  wax  at  the  pre= 
sence  of  the  Lord,  at  the  presence  of  the  Lord  of 
the  whok  earth.  The  heavens  declare  his  right- 
eousness, and  all  the  people  see  his  glory.  Con- 
founded be  all  they,  that  worship  graven  images^ 
that  boast  themselves  of  idols  ;  Worship  him,  all 
ye  gods  ;"  or  Angels — (as  the  Septuagint,  and  the 
apostle  in  the  above  quotation,  render  it.)  Not  a 
word  is  said  here  of  the  Messiab^s  being  at  that 
time  God's  first  Begotten.  Here  he  is  the  great 
and  infinite  Jehovah  of  the  whole  earth,  in  all  the 
glory  of  the  true  God.  But  when  God  becomes 
manifest  in  the  flesh,  then  the  Father  saith,  "  And 
let  all  the  anofels  of  God  worship  him."  And  he 
is  now  presented,  in  humanity,  as  God's  first  Be- 
gotten. 

Again.  "  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  sent 
his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  on 
him  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life." 
Let  the  passages  just  explained  by  their  primitive 
texts,  decide  the  sense  of  this.  iTea,  let  John,  in 
his  introduction  of  the  Messiah,  decide  the  sense 
of  it.  God  so  loved  the  svorld,  that  he  sent  his 
beloved  and  adorable  Logos,  who  was  in  the  begin- 
ning with  God.  and  was  God,  one  with  the  Father  ; 
but  who  was  now  in  human  nature  manifest  to 
his  people,  as  God's  only  begotten  Son.  The  title 
under  which  he  is  now  known,  is  given  ;  but  nut 
the  title,  under  which  he  was  known,  or  which  did 
apply  to  his  Divinity,  when  God  determined  to 
send  him. 

The  apostle,  Gal.  iv.  4,  affords  a  clew  to  ex- 
plain this  point.  "  But  when  the  fulness. of  time 
was  come,  God  sent  forth  his  Son,  made  of  a 
woman,  made  under  the  law,  to  redeem  them  that 
were  under  the  Jaw,  that  we  might  receive  the 
adoption  of  sons." — Here,  when  the  time  of  the 


46 

promise  arrived,  God  sent  his  Son.  How  was  the 
Person,  who  was  now  sent.  God's  Son  ?  The  pas- 
sage informs;  "made  of  a  woman;  made  under 
the  law  ;"  to  redeem  and  save.  Christ  here  was 
made  the  Son  ofGod,b>  the  miraculous  producing 
of  his  hum.anity  from  the  virgin  Mary,  that  he  might 
do  the  work  of  the  Mediator;  that  he  might  exer- 
cise that  filial  obedience  under  the  law,  essential 
to  his  mediaton*-;!  character,  and  to  man's  salva- 
tion. This  is  the  plain  sense  of  the  above  text. 
And  it  perfectly  accords  with  the  words  of  Gabriel 
to  Mary;  and  with  the  account  given  of  this  sub- 
ject in  "  the  book  of  the  generation  of  Jesug 
Christ." 

Again.  "  He  that  spared  not  his  own  Son,  but 
delivered  him  up  for  us  all." — This  may  relate  to 
the  days  of  Christ  on  earth,  when  he  was  known 
^s  the  Son  of  Gad.  God  did  not  then  spare  him  ; 
but  '•  laid  on  him  the  iniquities  of  us  all."  He, 
who  was  presented  as  God's  own  Son,  must  suffer, 
and  be  delivered  up  to  death.  "  Though  he  was 
a  Son,  yet  learned  he  obedience  by  the  things, 
which  he  sulfered."  And  ''  It  pleased  the  Father 
to  bruise  him,  and  to  put  him  to  grief."  But  should 
any  think,  that  this  text  may  relate  to  the  divine 
■act  of  sending  the  Saviour  from  heaven  ;  (as  it  no 
doubt  may ;)  the  explanation  of  the  foregoing  texts 
may  equally  apply  to  this,  and  to  all  of  a  similar 
nature.  This  mode  of  speech  is  common.  See 
Exod.  iii.  1  ;  "Moses  led  his  flock  to  the  back  side 
of  the  desert,  and  came  to  the  mountain  of  God, 
even  to  Horeb."  This  mountain,  when  Moses 
here  came  to  it,  Mas  not  known  as  the  mountain 
of  God.  But,  it  being  known  by  this  name,  when 
Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch,  he  speaks  of  his  coin- 
ing to  the  mount  of  God* 


Chiist  uses  the  same  kind  of  language.     '^  What 
^nd  if  je  shall  see  Ihc  Son  of  man  a>ceLd  up  where 
he  was  hefore  ?"     He  here  alludes  to  his  own  pre- 
existent  state  in  heaven.     But  did  he  pre-exist  in 
heaven  as  the  So7i  of  man?  Suiel}'  not ;  but  as  the 
Logos  ; — one  with  God,  and  who  was  God.     Litt 
being  now  known  ias  the  Son  of  man,  he  modest !j 
applies  this  name,  by  which  he   was  now  knov.n, 
and   bv  wiiich   he  most  frequently   denominaled 
himself,  to  his  pre  existent  person  in  heav  en,  tho' 
he  n^as  never  known  as  the  Son  of  man,  till  l;e  tab- 
ernacled on  earth,   and  was  God  manifest  in  the 
flesh.     We  say,    When   king  David  k«ipt  his  fa- 
ther's sheep.     But  he  was  not  king,  wiiea  he  kept 
them.     We  say,    When  king  Solon;on  was  born. 
Yet  he  was  not  born  kin^.  nor  Solomon.     But  af- 
terward being  known   by   both  tiie   oliire  and  the 
name,  these  are  carried  back  to  his  birlh,  wi^en  his 
birth  is  spoken  of.     One  says,  My  father  was  born 
in  such  a  year.     He  does  not  mean,  tl.at  he  was 
born  his   father.     In  like  manner,  when  tnc  read, 
''  God  so  lo^  ed  the  world,  that  he  sent  his  Oiily  be- 
gotten Son" — ""  God  sent  forth  his  Son,  made  of  a 
woman" — the  plain  meanii*g  appears  to  ije.  God 
sent  his  beloved  Logos,    the  darling  of  liis  bosom, 
inlinitely  dear,  as  one  witli  himself,  who  took  im- 
man  nature,  and  w^as  manifested  as  the  oiily  begot- 
teii  Son  of  God. 

But  such  texts  do  not  teach  that  the  Divinity  of 
Christ  did  literally  sustain  the  filial  relation  to  God, 
as  having  been  be^ijotten  by  the  Father,  at  some 
period  before  creation.  And  we  see,  from  nume- 
rous scriptures,  that  this  sense  cannot  be  adm.'tred. 
The  primitive  texts  of  the  Old  Testament,  which 
first  point  to  the  paternal  and  filial  relation,  we 
have  seen  applied,  by  the  Holy  (iliost.  to  the  mi- 
raculous producing  of  Christ's  humanity,  and  to 


48 

his  being  introduced  to  his  mediatorial  work,  and 
to  his  inheritance.  What  right  then  has  man  to 
apply  these  texts,  and  others,  which  allude  to  them, 
contrary  to  the  application  made  by  the  Holy 
Ghost?  When  we  consider,  that  the  Old  Testa- 
ment is  silent  concerning  any  paternal  and  filial  re- 
lation, as  then  actually  existing  between  the  two 
first  Persons  in  the  Trinity,  and  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  does  apply  the  first  predictions  in  the  Old 
Testament,  which  speak  of  those  relations  between 
God  and  Christ,  to  the  manifestation  of  the  Messi- 
ah in  the  flesh ;  we  may  conclude  that  we  have  n© 
divine  warrant  to  say,  that  the  Divinity  "of  4he  se- 
cond Person  in  tlie  Godhead  was  derived  from  the 
First. 


^wm^^  T^ 


NO  BENEFIT  RESULTS  FROM  A  SUPPOSED  DERI- 
VATION OF  CHRIST'S  DIVINITY. 

Among  arguments  which  have  been  adduced,  in 
favour  of  a  derivation  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ 
from  God,  are  found  such  as  the  following,  either 
expressed,  or  implied  : — That  such  a  derivation 
would  be  most  congenial  to  the  idea  of  the  divine 
paternal  affection  toward  his  Son  ;  and  most  con- 
genial to  the  idea  of  Christ's  filial  affection  toward 
his  Father. — And  that  this  scheme  must  magnify 
the  love  of  God  toward  our  fallen  world  ;  in  that 
he  would  send  a  Son  whose  Divinity  was  derived 
from  him,  the  Father,  and  therefore  the  most  dear 
possible.  That  herein  we  may  form  a  due  estimate 
of  the  love  of  God  to  our  sinful  race  : — And  that 
we  can  have  no  medium  so  suitable  and  striking, 
on  any  other  plan,  to  lead  us  to  form  a  suitable 
estimation  of  the  love  and  grace  of  God,  in  the 
scheme  of  gospel  salvation. 

To  creatures  like  men  cloathed  in  flesh,  circum- 
scribed, and  most  sensibly  impressed  with  the  feel- 
ings of  parental  and  filial  affections,  arguments 
like  the  above,  ably  expressed,  may  appear  for- 
cible. But  in  this  thing  we  must  not  judge  after 
the  outward  appearance  ;  but  must  judge  righteous 
judgment.  On  reading,  and  atten  p^-'  g  to  weigh 
such  arguments,  questions  like  the  following  have 
occurred  with  force  to  my  mind.  I  will  just  ex- 
5  . 


50 

press  thc!n  as  the  only  refutation,  which  I  shall  at- 
tempt, of  the  above  arguments.  If  they  strike 
otliers  as  they  do  me,  they  will  atford  all  the  refu- 
tation necessary.  Relative  to  this,  the  reader  will 
make  up  his  own  opinion. 

U  hy  should  a  derivation  of  the  Divinity  of 
Christ  1)0  deemed  necessary  ?  Must  Christ  be  un- 
able to  feel  in  the  best  possible  manner,  that  affec- 
tion toward  God  the  Father, which  is  most  becom- 
ing the  mediatorial  character,  unless  he  is  in  his 
divine  nature  actually  derived  and  dependent  ? 
Or  must  the  Mediator,  if  he  be  of  underived  Di- 
vinity, be  less  capable  of  feeling  that  tender  affec- 
tion toward  mankind,  which  if  derived  and  depen- 
dent he  might  possess  /  Is  the  Father  incapable 
of  feeling,  in  the  best  possible  manner,  the  most 
suitable  parental  affection  toward  the  Person  of 
the  Mediator,  luiless  he  be  literally  a  Father  to 
the  Divinity  of  Christ  ?  It  is  said  among  men, 
people  do  not  know  the  parental  atfection,  till  they 
learn  it  from  experience.  Can  the  same  thing  be 
applicable  to  the  Most  High  ?  "  He  that  formed 
the  eye,  shall  he  not  see,"  unless  he  have  material 
eves  /  He  that  made  the  ear.  shall  he  not  hear, 
though  he  have  no  organ  of  hearing  like  ours  ? 
And  he  that  implanted  the  parental  affection,  shall 
he  not  know  what  it  is.  even  if  he  have  not  learn- 
ed it,  as  have  human  parents,  from  experience  ? 
May  not  the  Person  of  Jesus  Christ  be  the  dearest 
possible  to  the  Father,  unless  Christ's  Divinity  be 
actually  derived  and  dependent  ?  ]\Iay  not  the  love 
of  God  to  tliis  fallen  world  be  as  real,  as  great,  and 
as  gloriously  exliibited,  in  sending  a  Saviour  who 
is  possessed  of  Divinity  that  is  underived  and  eter- 
Dal  ;  as  in  sending  a  Saviour  derived  and  depen- 
dent ?  Why  may  not  the  economy  of  grace,  in 
such  a  case,  be  as  great  and  wonderful  ?    May  not 


51 

One,  of  uiiderived  Divinity,  love  and  lie  loved  as 
intensely,  as  a   person  produced  and   dependent  ? 
Why  may  not  such   Persons  of  real   Divinity,  as 
the  Trinitarians  have  conceived  the  Three  in  the 
Godliead  to  be,  love  each  other  with  as  real  and  in- 
tense aiiection,  as  God  in  one  Person  only  could 
be  supposed  to  love  a  Son  actually  bci^otten  of  the 
divine  nature  ?  Can  derivation  or  dependence  lay 
a  foundation  for  the  exercise  of  love,  which  can- 
not exist  in  the  intinite  God  underived  and  inde- 
pendent ?     What  excellency  can   derivation  cona- 
municate,  which  underived  eternal  Divinity  luust 
be  unable  to  supply  ?  Can  any  being  be  more  ex- 
cellent, or  adequate  to  every  needful  purpose,  than 
the  infinite   God  /  Can  it  be  more  grateful  to   the 
feelings  of  piety  to  contemplate  a  Saviour  derived 
and  wholly  dependent,  than  to  contemplate  one 
possessed  of  underived  Divinity,  in  union  with  real 
humanity  ?     Shall   we  say,  such  a  derivation   and 
dependence  bring  Christ  nearer  to  man,  and  render 
access  to  him  more  easy  and  pleasing  ?  It  does  in- 
deed  bring  him  down  infinitely  nearer  to  a  level 
with  man  !  It  makes  him  a  creature  like  ourselves. 
But  is  not  the   glorified  humanity  of  Christ   suffi- 
cient to  render  access  to  him  (or  to  God  through 
him)  sufticiently  easy  and  pleasing  to  the   godly 
soul  ^  Or  is  underived  Divinity  so  dreadful  an  idea 
to  the  godly  person,  that  it  would  be  more  unplea- 
sant  to  view  it  as  existing  in  the   Person   of  our 
Saviour,  or  standing  so  near  to  us,  as  in  union  with 
the   glorified   humanity   of  Christ  ?  Can  wc  Lave 
more  proper  aad  exalted   ideas  of  the  io\  e  and 
grace  of  God  toward  fallen  man,  should  we  admit 
that  Christ  is  of  Divinity  derived  and  uependeiit. 
than   can   be  conceived   upon  the  grouiid  of  his 
bein^  iiiidcrived  and  independent  .^  Is  it  not  a  self- 
evident  fact,  that  the  love  and  grace  of  God  are 


52 

mlimtely  more  exhibited,  in  sending  a  Saviour 
of  infinite  Divinity,  than  in  sending  a  derived,  de- 
pendent Saviour  ?  Does  not  the  latter  idea  infinite- 
ly diminish  the  mercy  of  God  in  the  scheme  of 
salvation  ? 

But  is  it  possible  for  real  Divinity  to  be  derived? 


£2S^CS-^  -^s 


PROPER  DIVINITY  IXFINITKLY  INCAPABLE  OF  DE- 
RIVATION. 

An  exact  resemblance  of  some  of  the  divine 
perfections  may  be,  and  is,  formed  in  creatures. 
Angels  possess  the  perfect  natural  and  moral  im- 
age of  God.  The  spirits  of  the  just  made  perfect 
do  the  same.  Man  was  made  in  the  image  of  God. 
The  image  of  God's  natural  perfections  fallen  man 
still  retains.  But  his  moral  image  man  has  lost. 
To  the  new  born,  the  image  of  God's  moral  per- 
fection is  partially  restored.  Hence  they  are  said 
to  be  "  partakers  of  a  divine  nature  ;"  and  "  of 
his  fulness  they  have  received,  and  grace  for 
grace  ;" — grace  in  the  copy  answering  to  its  Pro- 
totype. What  can  render  any  dependent  being 
more  like  God,  than  to  have  this  image  of  God  in 
that  perfection,  which  is  possessed  by  the  inhabit- 
ants of  heaven  ?  They  are  the  children  of  God. 
And  they  are  as  much  like  him,  as  to  their  moral 
nature,  or  the  kind  of  their  resemblance,  as  is  pos- 
sible. They  are  perfectly  "  satisfied  with  God's 
likeness."  Shall  it  be  said,  that  greater  natural 
powers  would  render  them  more  like  God  ?  Re- 
ply. Perhaps  even  this  would  not  render  the  re- 
semblance more  perfect.  For  in  point  of  degree, 
or  greatness  of  powers,  finite  bears  no  proportion 
to  infinite.  But  how  great  powers  some  of  the 
creatures  of  God  do  possess,  we  know  not.  And 
5* 


54 

who  can  tell  but  the  human  powers  of  Jesus  Christ 
are,  upon  the  Trinitarian  principles,  as  great  and 
exalted,  as  the  Christ  of  the  Arian  can  be  con- 
ceived to  be  ? — far  exceeding  our  highest  con- 
ceptions. 

But  the  question  is,  can  real  divinity  be  derived 
or  propagated  ?  Is  not  a  conception  of  the  aflirm- 
ative  a  vast  absurdity  ?  Is  God  mutable  or  divis- 
ible ?  What  is  the  real  Divinity  of  the  Most  High  ? 
The  following  Attributes  have  ever  been  conceiv- 
ed as  essential  to  it : — Self-existence,  Indepen- 
dence, Infinity,  Omniscience,  Omnipotence,  Omni- 
presence, Im;nutability,  Infinity  of  holinesss  or 
benevolence. 

Can  there  be  real  Divinity  where  either  of  these 
is  wanting  ?  Surely  not,  according  to  the  senti- 
ment which  has  univerL-ally  been  entertained  of 
real  Divinity,  by  the  informed  and  judicious.  And 
can  these  Perfections  be  communicated,  or  deriv- 
ed ?  Can  God  himself  propagate  them  ?  Can  he 
propagate  Self-existence  ? — a  derived  underivcd- 
ness  ?  Or  a  dependent  independence  ?  Can  God 
beget  a  being  of  independent  Omniscience,  Omni- 
potence, or  Omnipresence  ?  Can  he  produce  an- 
other infinity  of  Holiness,  answering  to  his  own  ? 
God  can  do  every  thing  that  is  possible.  But  are 
not  these  infinitely  impossible  ?  Can  there  exist  a 
real  God,  besides  the  one  only  living  and  true 
God  ?  Can  another  real  God  exist,  yea,  be  pro- 
duced, who  is  destitute  of  the  above  incommuni- 
cable Perfections  ?  What  is  such  a  God  ?  And 
wherein  is  he  God  ? 

But  it  is  represented  that  God  has  a  communi- 
cable nature,  specifically  his  OAvn,  aside  from  the 
above  incommunicable  Perfections,  which  nature 
is  essentially  divine,  and  can  never  be  communi- 
cated  to  creatures,  though  they  are  said  to  be  in 


55 

God's  image,  to  have  his  Holy  Spirit,  to  be  parta- 
kers of  the  divine  nature,  and  to  have  received  of 
God's  fulness  grace  for  grace.     And  we  are  called 
upon  to  believe, thatthis  nature,(speciticall}  divine, 
infinitely   inferior  to  the  divine  incommunicable 
Perfections  ;  and  yet  essentially  superior  to  what 
a  holy  creature  can  possess,)  is  what  God  commu- 
nicated to  Christ;  and  tliat  this  made  him  really 
God  ;  while  yet  he  is  totally  dependent  ?  But  who 
can  believe  in  such  an  intermediate  divine  nature? 
It  is  something  destitute  of  properties,   and  inde- 
scribable.    Where  have  we  information  of  such  a 
thing  ?     Does  the  Bible  give  the  least  intimation 
of  such  a  divine  nature  ?    a  nature  so  specifically 
divine,  that,  while  it  can  be  communicated,  it  must 
render   its  subject  a  God,    though   distinct  from 
the  One  God,  who  communicated  it,   and  though 
w^holly  dependent?   Whence  is  our  information  of 
such  a  divine  nature  ?  Are  we  taught  it  from  anal- 
ogy?— that  because  many  creatures   do  propagate 
their  species,  and  communicate  their  own  speci-  \ 
fie  natures ;    therefore  the  infinite  God  must  be 
supposed  to  have  a  power  in  like  manner  to  prop- 
agate his  species  ?    Bold  deduction!    equal   to  say- 
ing, that  because  God  has  given  to  many  creatures 
a  power  to  multiply  ;  therefore  he  himself  maj  be 
multiphed  !    Because  many  creatures  possess  di- 
visibility ;    therefore  God  has  divisibility  !     New 
creatures  may  be   brought  into  existence  :   there- 
fore new  Gods  maybe  brought  into  existence! 
This  reasoning  appears   to  me  but  littte  short  of 
blasphemy.     It  is  a  reversion  back   to  paganism. 
The   idea,   that  because  God  sees  fit  to  produce 
that   number  of  some  of  his  creatures,  which  he 
desiiined  to  produce,  in  the  way  of  natural  gener- 
ation, therefore  God  himself    may  generate   and 
has  generated  a  God;    appears  too  horrid  to  be 


56 

oamed  among  Christians  ;  and  too  glaring  an  ab- 
surdity to  need  any  refutation  ! 

It  has  ever  been  received  as  one  of  the  plainest 
dictates  of  common  sense,  as  well  as  of  the  Bible, 
that  whatever  begins  to  exist,  is  a  creature  ;  that 
whatever  is  dependent,  is  a  creature  ;  and  that  it 
is  impossible  for  the  infinite  Jehovah  to  propagate 
another  Jehovah!  The  infinite  God  cannot  be 
wantinij  in  wisdom  or  power,  to  form  any  creature, 
that  he  may  please  to  form,  of  ever  so  exalted 
powers.  But  that  he  can  produce  a  being  essen- 
tially superior  to  a  creature  ;  or  can  produce  a 
God,  is  a  most  glaring  impossibility  !  God  may 
fc^rm  crea-tures  in  his  own  image,  and  may  call 
them  gods.  This  he  has  done,  in  heaven  and  on 
earth.  "  I  said  ye  are  gods."  "  Worship  him  all 
ye  gods."  But  this  is  a  thing  infinitely  ditFerciil 
from  producing  a  real  God !  We  have  ample  no- 
tice, in  all  those  cases,  that  they  were  not  real 
Gods,  but  creatures. 

If  these  remarks  be  correct,  then  Jesus  Christ 
either  must  be  possessed  of  real  Divinity,  underi- 
ved  ;  or  he  is  a  mere  creature.  There  can  be  no 
possible  medium.  To  say  that  Christ  is  neither 
the  infinite  God,  nor  a  creature,  is  to  talk  without 
ideas.  And  this  would  come  with  a  very  ill  grace 
from  a  man,  who  is  very  liberal  in  censuring  oth- 
ers, for  saying  things  upon  the  divine  Trinity, 
which  cannot  be  comprehensibly  defined  ;  and 
who  deetr.s  it  a  sufficient  objection  against  the 
sentiments  of  Trinitarians,  that  they  involve  some 
inexplicable  mysteries.  Such  a  man  ought  to  be 
able  to  give  us  a  more  intelligible  defiuition  of  that 
divine  nature,  which,  as  the  basis  of  his  scheme, 
constitutes  Christ  a  God  ;  while  yet  he  is  finite 
and  dependent.  In  leaving  this  supposed  divine 
nature  involved  in  mystery,  and  destitute   of  all 


57 

conceivable  properties,  the  author  of  this  notion 
violates  his  own  maxim  ;  that,  *'  To  make  use  of 
terms,  of  which  we  can  give  no  intelHgible  expla- 
nation, has  no  tendency  to  communicate  hght. 
Those,  who  make  use  of  terms  in  relation  to  God 
or  to  Christ,  ought  at  least  (he  says)  to  be  able 
and  willing  to  tell  their  own  meaning  in  the  use  of 
those  terms."  But  even  this  man  finds  it  very 
convenient,  when  speaking  of  a  supposed  divine 
nature,  derived  from  God, which  constitutes  Christ 
a  God,  while  yet  destitute  of  every  truly  divine 
perfection,  to  involve  the  subject  in  inexplicable 
mystery  !  Yet  all  his  readers  must  believe  in  his 
mystery  ;  while  he  is  constrained  to  renounce  the 
mystery  of  the  Trinity!  Let  such  a  man  be  asked, 
if  one  God  can  be  derived,  why  not  many  ?  many 
Mighty  Gods,  and  Everlasting  Fathers !  many 
first  Causes  and  last  Ends  of  all  things  !  It  seems 
like  trifling,  otherwise  I  should  be  inclined  to  ask 
such  a  man.  Who  knows,  upon  his  principles,  how 
great  a  family  of  such  Gods,  even  male  and  fe- 
male, may  yet  exist  ?  Surely,  upon  his  principle, 
nothing  forbids  but  the  number  should  become 
vast !  Pagan  gods  and  goddesses  have  been  vastly 
numerous,  in  the  imagination  of  their  votaries. 
That  pagan  god  that  might  propagate  one  natural 
son,  might  propagate  twenty,  and  as  many  daugh- 
ters. 

What  essence  or  part  of  God  is  it  possible  to 
conceive  could  be  divided  and  taken  from  that  in- 
finite, simple,  indivisible,  immutable  Spirit,  ''  with 
whom  there  is  no  variableness,  neither  shadow  of 
turning  ?"  Is  such  a  Spirit  capable  of  diminution, 
or  divisibility  ? 

Pagans  believed  in  a  power  of  propagation  in 
their  gods.  But  the  Bible  demands  the  belief  of 
liothing  of  this  kind,  relative  to  our  heavenly  Fa- 


58 

ther.  We  are  taught  to  believe,  that  '•  Adam  was 
the  son  of  God  ;"  (^Luke  iii.  38)  ;  and  that  Angels 
are  the  sons  of  God  ;  (Job  xxxviii.  7)  ;  not  be- 
cause they  were  fonr>ed  of  God's  essence  :  bat  be- 
cause he  made  them  in  his  own  likeness,  and 
"partakers  of  the  divine  nature."  And  Chris- 
tians are  "  partakers  of  the  divine  nature;"  hav- 
ing of  Christ's  "fulness  received,  and  grace  for 
grace."  But  those  things  do  not  render  them 
eternal,  because  the  divine  nature,  of  which  they 
partake,  is  eternal.  And  we  have  no  more  right 
to  conceive,  that  there  is  any  sense,  in  which 
Christ's  Divinity  can  have  been  literally  derived 
from  God,  which  is  consistent  with  his  being  eter- 
nal. 

There  is  one  passage,  which  may  seem  to  some, 
at  first  view,  to  favor  the  idea,  of  a  derivation  of 
Christ's  Divinity.  Prov.  viii.  22 — ;  "  The  Lord 
possessed  me  in  the  beginning  of  his  ways,  before 
his  works  of  old.  I  was  set  up  from  everlasting, 
from  the  beginning,  or  ever  the  world  was.  When 
there  was  no  depths,  I  was  brought  forth,  when 
there  were  no  fountains  abounding  with  water. 
Before  the  mountains  were  settled,  before  the 
hills,  was  I  brought  forth  :  While  as  yet  he  had 
not  made  the  earth,  nor  the  fields,  nor  the  highest 
part  of  dust  of  the  world.  When  he  prepared  the 
heavens,  I  was  there  ;  when  he  set  a  compass  up- 
on the  face  of  the  deep  ;  when  he  established  the 
clouds  above  ;  when  he  strengthened  the  fountains 
of  the  deep;  when  he  gave  the  sea  his  decree, 
that  the  waters  shouid  not  pass  his  commandment; 
when  he  appointed  the  foundations  of  the  earth  ; 
then  I  was  by  him.  as  one  brought  up  with  him  ; 
and  I  was  daily  his  delight,  rejoicing  always  before 
him.  re  oicing  in  the  hahiia!)!e  part  of  his  earth, 
and  my  delights  were  with  the  sons  of  men."     It 


59 

is  a  good  rule,  in  exposition,  never  to  set  a  solita- 
ry passage  against  the  general  tenor  of  tlie  Word 
ot'  God.  Scripture  must  explain  Scripture,  it 
never  contradicts  itseif ;  however  a  sohtary  pas- 
sage may  seem,  at  first  view,  to  contradict  what 
is  taught  in  many. 

It  is  evident,  and  good  authorities  warrant  us  to 
say.  that  w^isdom,  in  this  passage,  is  personitied  by 
a  well  known  figure  or  usage  in  human  langua-e. 
'•  Doth  not  Wisdom  cry,  and  understandijjg  put 
forth  her  voice  ?  Slie  crieth  at  the  gates,  at  ihe 
entry  of  the  city,  at  the  coming  in  at  the  doors." 
Here  is  the  person,  represented  as  a  female,  whose 
discourse  composes  the  chapter.  She  represents 
herself  as  a  person  distinct  from  the  Jehovah,  who 
created  the  world.  But  Christ  is  the  very  Jeho- 
vah, who  created  all  things,  as  will  be  noted. 
*'  All  things  were  made  by  him."  This  person, 
in  figure,  gives  an  account  (as  might  be  expected, 
to  enforce  her  instructions,  and  to  make  tiie  rep- 
resentation complete)  of  her  antiquity,  and  of  her 
kindred  with  the  Most  High.  She  is  accordin;iIj 
iet  up  from  everlasting,  and  brought  forth  before 
the  hills.  But  are  we  from  this  figurative  passage, 
to  believe  that  the  wisdom  of  God  was  literally 
brought  forth  ?  Or,  that  the  Jehovah  of  hosts, 
whom  we  have  been  contemplating,  as  the  mighty 
God,  the  great  God,  the  true  and  eternal  God,  had 
SL  beginning? 

Supposing,  that  in  the  passage  we  do  truly  hear 
the  voice  of  Christ,  the  djfficullty  is  not  hence  in- 
creased. For  he  is  speaking  under  the  borrowed 
character,  noted  above.  And  accordingly  he 
would  give  the  same  representation  of  this  charac- 
ter, as  above,  and  according  to  the  conceptions  of 
men.  God  himself  is  often  spoken  of,  after  the 
manner  of  men  ;  aud  things  are  predicated  of  him. 


60 

which  are  far  from  being  Hterally  true.  Bui  to 
take  occasion  from  the  above  passage  to  deny  the 
eternity  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  incur  all  the  insu- 
perable difficulties,  which  attend  the  opinion,  that 
the  Divinity  of  Christ  was  actually  derived,  and  is 
finite  ;  and  thus,  that  he  is  not  the  very  God  ;  is  to 
violate  all  the  best  rules  of  exposition  ;  and  to  con- 
tradict the  numerous  and  most  evident  decisions 
of  the  sacred  pages. 

The  terms  God  and  creatures^  have  ever  been 
received,  as  necessarily  comprising  all  Beings  in 
the  universe.  To  present  a  being,  who  is  neither 
the  true  and  infinite  God,  nor  yet  a  creature,  is  in- 
deed to  fiirnish  ''  news,*'  either  from  the  "  Bible," 
or  from  one's  own  bewildered  imagination  !  But 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  of  real  and  underived  Divinity, 
does  abundantly  appear  in  the  sacred  Oracles  ;  as 
I  shall  now  attempt  to  ascertain. 


g2SS2Si\"  ^2* 


JESUS  CHRIST  IS  GOD  UNDERIVED. 

The  arguments  which  have  been  adduced  fby 
Trinitarians,  in  favour  of  the  proper  Divinity  of 
Christ,  1  have  never  seen  refuted.  I  shall  pro- 
ceed to  state  some  of  them  ^  and  to  make  deduc- 
tions from  various  scriptures,  which  establish 
Christ's  real  Divinity. 

That  Jesus  Christ  is  God  underived,  is  evident 
from  w^hat  was  said  of  his   type,  Melchizedek  ; 
"  Without  father,  without  mother,    without    de- 
scent;  having  neither  beginning  of  days,  nor  end 
of  time."     Granting  that  this,  as  it  related  to  Mel- 
chizedek, is  spoken  in  allusion  to  that  order  under 
the  law,  in  which  a  correct  register  of  their  geneal- 
ogy was  essential  to  a  regular  standing  in  the  Jew- 
ish Priesthood ;  and  that  we  are  furnished  with  no 
such  register,  with  respect  to  Melchizedek  ;  yet  if 
the  things  here  expressed  be  not  literally  true  of 
the  Divinity  of  him,  who  is  the  Antitype  of  Mel- 
chizedek ;  with  what  propriety  is  such  a  represen- 
tation given  of  the  type  ?     If  Melchizedek  was 
typically  (in  the  sense  above  given)  without  father, 
without  mother,  without  descent,  and  without  be- 
ginning ;  it  must  have  been  designed  to  represent, 
that  Jesus  Christ  in  his  Divinity  is  really  thus. 
Else,  what  can  be  the  indication  ?     If  it  must  be 
an  article  in  the  Christian  faith,  (as  some  now  af- 
(irm)  that  the  Divinity  of  Jesus  Christ  was  not 
6 


^2 


>vjihout  tutber,  without  descent,  or  beginning  ;  but, 
that  be  was  literally  derived  from  God.  as  really 
Hs  was  Isaac  irom  Abraham  ;  and  that  he  had  thus 
a  descent,  and  a  beginning;  how  strange  is  it,  that 
wc  should  find  the  above  passage  in  aur  inspired 
rule  of  faith?  For  in  that  case,  it  is  a  passage 
perfectly  calculated  to  mislead,  in  a  momentous 
point.  This  inspired  account  given  to  the  He- 
brews of  Melchizedek,  wlicn  presented  as  a  type 
of  Christ,  does  clearly  decide,  that  while,  in  the 
economy  of  grace,  God  is  to  Christ  for  a  Father, 
and  Christ  is  to  God  for  a  Son  ;  yet  Christ,  in  his 
Divinity,  is  ''  without  father,  without  mother,  with- 
out descent,  or  beginning." 

The  world,  after  the  tlood,  lost  the  knowledge 
of  the  true  God,  and  fell  into  idolatry.  One  ob- 
ject of  the  mission  of  Christ  into  the  world,  and  of 
Revelation,  was  to  recover  man  from  idolatry  to 
fhe  knowledge  and  worship  of  the  true  God. 

Would  the  Most  High  then,  in  the  very  outset 
for  effecting  this  object,  have  instituted  a  system  of 
idolatry,  as  the  means  of  etfecting  it  ?  But  if  God 
sent  a  derived  and  dependent  Being  into  the 
world,  underthe  names,  titles  and  attributes  of  God, 
and  commanded  Angels  and  men  to  honor  him, 
even  as  they  honor  the  Father;  then  the  Most 
High,  in  the  origin  of  his  attempt  to  recover  man 
from  idolatry,  instituted  a  system  of  idolatry.  For 
idolatry  is  the  worship  of  some  being,  beside  the 
one  only  living  and  true  God.  It  is  having  anoth- 
er God,  before  the  only  One.  This  is  the  immu- 
table nature  of  idolatry.  To  speak  with  reve- 
rence, God  himself  could  iwit  cause  that  this  should 
not  be  idolatry  !  Shall  it  be  said,  God  has  a  right 
fo  set  up  an  own  Son  under  his  own  name,  though 
wholly  distinct  from  himself,  and  invest  him  with 
his  titles  and  glories  ;  and  command  all  to  worship 


63 

him;  and  if  God  clioose  to  do  thus,  why  should 
mau  object  ?  Reply.  It  is  impossible  for  the  God 
of  eternal  truth  to  set  up  anotiier  God  beside  him- 
seif.  It  would  be  establishing,  in  the  universe,  a 
palpable  untruth.  And  God  cannot  lie.  It  would 
be  giviui^  his  glory  to  another  ;  and  subverting  the 
fundamental  law  of  his  own  kingdom,  which  pre- 
sents himself,  as  the  only  God,  and  the  only  Ob- 
ject of  worship.  Is  it  possible  that  God,  in  under- 
taking to  recover  man  from  idolatry,  to  the  know- 
ledge and  worship  of  himself,  should  first  establish 
another  Object  of  worship  beside  himself?  Is  not 
this  a  contradiction  of  his  own  object,  as  well  as  of 
the  whole  tenor  of  his  word  ?  His  object  is  to  re- 
cover men  to  the  worship  of  himself.  Ai'.dto  ef- 
fect it,  he  (upon  the  above  supposition)  sets  up  an- 
other object  beside  himself,  to  be  worshipped. 
But  the  language  of  God's  word  upon  this  subject 
is,  "  I  am  the  Lord,  that  is  my  name  ;  and  my 
glory  I  will  not  give  unto  another.  Beside  me, 
there  is  no  God  ;  I  know  not  any."  Certainly 
then,  Christ  and  the  Father  must  be  comprised  in 
this  pronoun  me,  beside  whom,  Jehovah  himself 
knows  not  any  God.  Inevitably  the  Persons  of 
the  Father  and  the  Son  must  each  be  found  in  this 
one  God,  who  speaks  of  himself  as  the  Only  One. 
Christ  is  through  the  Scriptures  represented  as,  in 
some  sense,  distinct  from  the  Father ;  while  yet 
he  is  honored  with  the  very  names,  titles  and  glo- 
ries of  God  ;  and  is  represented  as  really  one 
with  God. 

The  word  Jehovah  imports  self-existence  ;  ^.nd 
is  a  peculiar  name  of  the  intinitc,  eternal  God. 
Deut.  vi.  4 ;  "  Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord  thy  God 
is  one  Jehovah."  Psalm  Ixxxiii.  18  ;  '•  That  men 
may  know  that  thou  whose  name  alone  is  Jehovah, 
art  the  Most  High  over  ail  the  earth."    Yetabud- 


64 

dtintly  through  the  Old  Testament  (Christ  is  called 
by  this  very  name.  Jer.  xxiii.  G  ;  *'  This  is  the 
name,  by  wliich  he  (Christ)  shall  be  called,  The 
Jehovah  our  righteousness."  Certainly  then, 
Christ  is  the  very  God;  one  with  the  Father. 

In  Exodus  iii.  we  have  an  account,  that  "  The 
Angel  of  the  Lord  appeared  to  Moses  in  the  tlame 
of  tire  out  of  the  midst  of  a  bush."     Who  can  be 
meant  by  this  Angel  of  the  Lord  ?     Ceriainly  ,a 
Person  in  some  sense  distinct  from  the  Father. 
For  the  Father  is  never  represented   as  his  own 
Angel.     But  Christ  is  often  represented  as  the 
Angel  of  the  Lord  ;  as  will  appear.     Pie  is  the 
Messenger  (Angel)  of  the  covenant ;  the  Angel   of 
God's  presence.     As  an  Angel,  he  often  appeared 
of  Old.     We  cannot  doubt  but  the  Angel,  who  ap- 
peared to  Moses  in  the  bush,  was  the  Person  of 
Christ.     But  what  does  he  say  of  himself  ?     He 
presented  himself  to  Moses,  as  the  intinite,  eternal 
God.     He  there  calls  himself  the  Lord,  or  Jeho- 
vah, (as  in  the  Hebrew)  and  God.     Moses  must 
loose  his  shoes  from  his  feet :  The  ground  was  ho- 
ly ;  for  God  was  there.     This  Angel  of  the  Lord 
styles  himself,  ''  The  God  of  Abraham,  the  God  of 
Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob."     He  promises  Mo- 
ses, that  L'.'  would  be  with  him.     He  suggests  that 
he  had'made  man's  m.outh,  and  would  enable  him 
to  speak.     He  instructs   Moses  to  say  to  Israel, 
concerning  him,  "  The  God  of  your  fathers  hath 
sent  me  unto  you."     "  And  God  said  ui.to  Mosts, 
4  AM  THAT  I  AM  :  And  he  said.  Thus  shalt  Ihnu  say 
unto  the  children  of  Israel,  i  am  hath  seut  n\e  unto 
you."     Tliis  the  Angel  calls  his  name,  in   conse- 
quence of  3Ioses  inquiring  for  it ;  a  name,   which 
imports  necessary,  or  eternal  existence.     All  that 
follows  in  this  chapter  teaches,  that  this  Angel  of 
the  Lord  was  at  the  same  time  the  eternal  God^ 


65 

••  xA.n;l  Go'X  said  lUDreover  uato  [VI',)ses,  Thus  shalt 
tliou  say  uato  the  cliililren  of  Isi-ael,  The  Lord 
God  of  your  fathers,  the  God  of  Abraham,  the 
God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob  hath  sent  me 
u;)to  you  ;  this  is  my  name  forever,  and  this  is  my 
memorial  unto  all  generations."  These  are  the 
titles  of  the  infinite  Gad.  Yet  the  Angel  of  the 
Lord  in  the  bush  did  not  scruple  to  take  these 
name*  to  himself.  ^V^ould  he  have  done  this,  if  he 
had  not  been  the  very  God  ?  In  this  account  we 
learn,  that  there  is  the  Lord,  or  Jehovah,  the  Per- 
son of  the  Father,  beside  this  Angel,  who  was  his 
messenger;  yet  that  this  Angel  was  the  very  God, 
It  follows  that  God  and  Christ  were,  in  some  mys- 
terious sense,  two,  yet  essentially  one. 

This  same  Angel  of  the  Lord  had  before  ap- 
peared to  Abraham,  (Gen.  xviii.)  with  two- 
created  Angels,  on  his  way  to  the  destruction 
of  Sodom.  The  trwo  created  Angels  w^ent 
on  and  appeared  to  Lot.  But  one  of  the 
three,  (who  is  called  the  Lord,  as  well  as 
the  Angel,  and  had  exhibited  his  omniscience, 
by  reproving  the  laughter  of  Sarah,  who  was  ab» 
sent,)  stayed  and  conversed  with  Abraham.  In 
this  interview  he  was  uniformly  called  the  Lord, 
or  Jehovah.  Abraham  speaks  to  him,  as  to  Jeho- 
vah, the  Judge  of  all  the  earth.  "  Shall  not  the 
Judge  of  all  the  earth  do  right  ?"  Are  we  not  as- 
sured, that  the  Angel  here  was  the  true  and  infi- 
nite God  ?  But  was  not  this  Angel  Jesus  Christ  ? 
who  afterwards  said,  "  Before  Abraham  w^as,  I 
am."  This  I  shall  take  for  granted,  that  the  An- 
gel of  the  Lord,  in  various  passages  of  the  Old 
Testament,  who  is  at  the  same  time  called  the 
Lord,  (Jehovah,)  was  Christ.  But  would  Christ 
have  received  from  another,  and  assumed  to  him- 
self, titles  peculiar  to  the  eternal  God,  if  be  were 
6* 


66 

not  the  eternal  God  ?     It  affords  no  relief  to  say. 
that  he  heing  God's  own  Son,  God  'sa  as  wilHng  to 
honor  him  with  the  titles  and  worship  due  to  God 
alone.       For  this   is    only   pleading  the   author- 
ity  of  God  himself,   to   establish  falsehood,   and 
idolatry.     It  is  the  immutable  law  of  the  Most 
High,  "  Thon  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  me.'' 
If  any  person  tlien,  be  had,  or  v\orshipped.as  God, 
who  is  not  contained  in   this   pronoun   me,   in   the 
first  command  ;  this  law  is  violated.     But  Christ 
is,  by  God's  command,  worshipped,  hy  Angels  and 
men.     He  is  therefore  contained  in  the  pronoun 
ME,  in  the  first  command.     Hence   we  learn  that 
he  is  one  with  God,  and  is  God  ;  as  he  himself  tes- 
tifies, '•  I  and  my  Father  are  one." 

It  Ts  a  fundamental  law  of  the  great  Eternal, 
'•  Tliou  shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God  ;  and  him 
only  shait  thou  serve,"  But  Christ  is  to  be 
woishipped.  Therefore  Christ  is  contained  in 
the  phrase,  "the  Lord  thy  God,  and  him  only." 
God  and  Christ  are  united  in  the  antecedent  to  the 
words  "  Him  only  shalt  thou  serve."  Here  we 
learn  their  essential  unity  ;  while  yfet  they  aie  in 
some  sense  two  ; — the  Lord,  and  his  Angel. — 
Christ's  unity  with  God  we  learn  in  Abraham's 
caili!ig  him  Jehovah  ;  and  speaking  to  him  as  to 
God  :  And  in  his  taking  to  himself,  in  the  burning 
bush,  the  very  titles  of  the  infinite  God  ;  and 
speaking  by  his  own  authoi-ity.  Atid  yet  we  learn 
that  there  is  some  real  distinction  between  him 
and  the  first  in  the  Godhead,  from  his  being  called 
the  Angel  of  the  Lord. 

This  sentiment  (that  God  and  Christ  are  two  ; 
and  yet  that  they  are  one,)  is  found  throughout  the 
Bible.  God  said  to  Moses,  Ex.  xxiii.  20,  "  Behold 
1  send  an  Arsgel  before  thee,  to  keep  thee  in  the 
way,  and  to  bring  thee  into  the  place,  which  I  have 


67 

prepared."     That  tliis  Angel  is  Chrisl,  is  evident. 
*'  For  tliey  drank  of  that  rock  tliat  followed  them  ; 
and  that  rock  was  Christ."      1  Cor.  x.  4.     He  is 
called  (Isiii.  Ixiii.  9,)  ''  The  Angel  of  God's   pres- 
ence, who  saved   Israel."     Here  the  Angel,  and 
God,  are  two  :  Yet  this  Angel,  through  all  the  re- 
mainihtT  p'lrt  of  IsraePs  journey,  was  spoken  of,  and 
worshipped,  as  the  Lord  God.     God  says   of  him, 
'*  My  name  is  in  him."     By  God's  name  here,  we 
are  to  understand  not  only   his  titles,  hut  perfec- 
tions :  My  perfections  are   in   him  : — In  the   He- 
brew, "  in  his  inward  parts  :" — ?tly  ^Perfections  are 
in.h.is  nature. — As  Christ  says,  John  x.  38  ;  "  I  am 
in  the  Father  ;  and  the  Father  in  me."     This  An- 
gel  of  God's  presence  went  hefore  Israel,   in  a 
eloud  by  day  and  a  pillar  of  tire  hy   night,   in  all 
their  Journey.     His  visible  appearance  was  called, 
the  glory  of  the  Lord.     In  this  shekinah   the   An- 
gel conversed  with  Moses.     But  he  was  called  the 
Lord,  or  Jehovah,  and  spake  by  his  own  authority. 
Read  the   history   of  Israel,   from   the   time  God 
said,  at  Mount  Sinai,  that  the   Angel  of  his  .pres- 
ence should  go  with  them,   and  bring  them   into 
the  land  of  Canaan  ;  and  you   will  find,  that  this 
Angel   was   the  infinite   Jehovah  himself.     Com- 
pare Psalm  Ixxviii.   56.  with    1    Cor.  x.  9  ;  "  Yet 
they  tempted  and  provoked  the  Most  High  God  ;" 
''  Neither  let   us  tempt  Christ,   as  some   of  them 
tempted,  and  were  destroyed  of  serpents."     Here 
God  decides,  that  Christ  (the  Angel  of  his  pres- 
ence)  is  the   Most  High  God.     Is  it  not  safe  to 
abide  by  his  decision,  relative  to  the  mode  of  his 
own  existence, even  though  clouds  and  darkness  rest 
upon  the  subject  ?     Can  we  read  concerninji  this 
Angel  of  God's  presence,  what  he  under  the  title 
of  Jehovah    said,    commanded,    and   threatened, 
(rom  time  to  time  \ — deciding  with  an  oath,  that 


68 


that  generation  should  not  enter  into  his  rest ;  and 
saving,  "  Let  me  alone,  tliat  I  may  consume  them 
in  a  moment ;  and  I  will  make  of  thee  a  great  na- 
tion V  Can  we  read  ol'liis  destroying  Korah,  Da- 
than  and  Abiram  : — and  rebuking  and  destro3ing 
kings  tor  Israel's  sake  ;  saying,  "  Touch  not  mine 
anointed,  and  do  my  piophets  no  harm  ?" — Can 
we  read  all  this  histoiy,  arid  all  the  references  to 
it  in  the  iSew  Testament ;  and  yet  disbelieve,  th-.t 
this  Angel  of  God's  y/resencc  with  Israel  was  the 
very  God  /  It  is  fujlhei'  said  of  him;  "  And  the 
Lord  oar  God  spake  unto  us  in  Horeb,  saying,  Ye 
have  dwelt  long  enough  iii  this  mount ;  turn  ye, 
and  take  your  journey.'*  Here  the  Angel  of  God's- 
presence,  who  accompanied  Israel,  is  called,  "  the 
Lord  our  God." 

The  same  Person  we  find,  in  Dent,  last  chapter, 
transacting  with  Mo^es  ;  and  is  the  very  God. 
After  decidini»  that  Moses  should  not  go  into  the 
promised  land,  he  takes  him  up  to  the  top  of  Pisgah, 
and  shows  him  the  goodly  Canaan.  "  And  Jeho- 
vah said  unto  him.  This  is  the  land,  which  I  sware 
unto  Abraham,  unto  Isaac,  and  unto  Jacob,  saying, 
I  will  give  it  to  thy  seed."  Here  the  Angel,  who 
was  to  bring  Israel  into  Canaan,  identifies  himself 
with  the  Je  iovah,  who  covenanted  with  Abraham. 
But  this  was  the  Lord  God  Almighty  :  Gen.  xvii. 
1;  ''  1  am  the  Almighty  God  ;  walk  before  me,  and 
be  thou  perfect."  Christ  then,  is  the  Lord  God 
Almighty  ;  one  with  the  Father. 

This  same  Angel  presented  himself  to  Joshua, 
when  about  to  enter  into  Canaan,  as  "  the  Cap- 
tain of  the  Lord's  host."  Here  he  distinguishes 
himself  from  the  JLord,  of  whose  host  he  was  the 
Captain.  Yet  in  the  solemn  interview  he  is  the 
Lord,  or  Jehovah,  claiming  divine  honors.  Josh- 
ua's shoes  must  be  put  olF.     The  ground  iii  his 


iiV 

presence  w^js  holy.  *'  And  the  Lord  said'  unfp 
Joshua,  See.  I  have  given  into  thine  hand  Jericho, 
and  all  the  kings  thereof." — Surely  tiiis  Jehovah 
was  God. 

Should  any  say,  If  these  things  be  thus,  where  is 
God  the  Father?  If  so  many  sacred  passages, 
which  speak  of  God  Jehovah,  are  to  be  applied  to 
Christ ;  what  remains  for  the  Father  ?  or  where 
sbaH  we  find  him  ? 

Reply,     The  Father  is  not  absent,  nor  excluded 
from  the  name  of  God,  even  while  all  his  titles  are 
applied   to   Christ.       But    these    representations 
teach,  that  God  and  Christ  are,  in  some  mysteri- 
ous sense,  two,  yet  essentially  one  :  As  Christ  de- 
cides ;  ''  That  ye  may  know  and  believe  that  the 
Father  is  in  me,  and   I   in   him.     (John   x.    3.3.) 
"  He,  that  hath  seen  me,  hath  seen  the  Father  al- 
so."    '*  They  ha',  e  both  seen  and  bated  both   me 
and  my  Father."     Ii  passages  almost  innumera- 
ble the  Fatncr  and  Christ  are  spoken   of  as  two  j 
and   yet  a* e  presented  in  an  essential   u^iity;  so 
that  each  mav  affinn,  that  there  is  wo  ether  God 
beside  himself.     The  abo-e   (questions  then,  are. 
fouuded  in  a  miscj!i'.-ept'o;i  of  the  sab  ect ;  view- 
ing the  Father  ^aiid   C'liist  as  two   distinct   Gods. 
But  they  are  .ior  cwo  «iistinct  Gods  :  thev  are  one 
God.     God  the  Fadier  rea'iy  does  all.  that  the  di- 
vine nature  of  Christ-  does  ;  he  is  not  absent ;  nor 
is  he  another  God,     And  yet  tlie  Bible  does  teach, 
that  the«-e  is  a   real,   though  mysterious,  personal 
d'^Viiictio!!  between  the  Father  and  the  Deity   of 
Christ.     Tiie  fact  mav  hot  be  denied  ;  though  the 
mo  le  cani>oi  bvman  be  explained.  God  covenant- 
ed with  Abrahanrr.    The  Father  is  not  to  be  exclu- 
ded from  this  transaction.     Neither  is  the  Deity 
of  Christ  to  be  excluded  from  it.   For  the  Angel  of 
God's  presence;  tiie  Angel  of  the  covenant  (in  the 


70 

passage  recited,  in  his  interview  with  Moses  ou 
the  top  of  Pisgah)  assumes  tlie  transaction  to  him- 
self: "  This  is  the  land,  which  I  sware  to  Abra- 
ham"— And  in  the  interv  iew.  at  the  burning  bush, 
he  styles  himself  '•  the  God  of  Abraham,  the  God 
of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob,  as  his  memorial 
throughout  all  generations.  The  idea  is  this  ; — 
the  second  Person  in  the  Trinity  is  one  God  with 
the  first.  What  the  first  does,  the  second,  rela- 
tive to  his  own  Deity,  scruples  not  to  ascribe  to 
himself.  While  the  two  are  God,  and  his  Angel ! 
yet,  in  some  essential  sense,  they  are  one  God. 
Otherwise  this  Angel  would  not  identify  himself 
with  the  Highest,  the  eternarGod.  The  two 
(God  and  his. Angel)  are,  for  distinction  sake,  call- 
ed persons  ;  not  because  the  word  person,  as  used 
among  men.  fully  applies  to  them  :  but  because  it 
comes  the  nearest  to  the  thing  designed  of  any 
w^ord.  For  this  reason,  the  2sicene  council  adop- 
ted the  use  of  the  word  Persons,  as  applicable  to 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  in  the  Trinity. 
The  Trinitarians  have  given  ample  notice,  that  by 
this  term,  when  thus  applied,  they  do  not  mean  in 
every  sense  the  same,  as  when  the  term  is  applied 
to  man.  With  this  notice  given,  they  conceive 
themselves  warranted,  from  the  word  of  God,  to 
apply  the  term  as  above  stated.  For  the  Father, 
the  Mediator,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  are,  through  the 
Bible,  spoken  of  as  Persons,  in  some  distinct  sense, 
and  yet  as  one  God. 

Who  was  he  that  wrestled  with  Jacob,  Gen. 
xxxii.  24 —  ?  Was  this  God  the  Father?  Or  was 
he  the  Angel  of  the  covenant  /  He  surely  must 
have  been  the  latter.  "  And  Jacob  Avas  left  alone ; 
and  there  wrestled  a  man  with  him  (or  one  wiio  ap- 
peared hke  a  man)  until  the  brervking  of  the  day. 
And  whea  he  aw  that  he  pruvaikd  not  against 


71 

him,  he  touched  the  hollow  of  his  tliigh,  and  the 
hollow  of  Jacoh'S  thi^h  was  out  of  joint,  as  he 
wrestled  with  him.  And  he  said.  Let  me  go  :  for 
the  day  breaketh.  And  he  said,  I  will  not  let  thee 
go.  except  thou  bless  me.  And  he  said  unto  hini, 
What  is  thy  name  ?  And  he  said,  Jacob.  And  he 
said,  Thy  name  shall  be  called  no  more  Jacob,  but 
Israel ;  for  as  a  prince  hast  thou  power  with  God, 
and  with  men,  and  hast  prevailed.  And  Jacob 
asked  him  and  said.  Tell  me  I  pray  thee  thy  name. 
And  he  said,  Wherefore  is  it  that  thou  dost  ask  af- 
ter my  name  ?  And  he  blessed  him  there.  And  Ja- 
cob called  the  nam.e  of  the  place  Peniel  ;  (the  face 
of  God)  for  I  have  seen  God  face  to  face,  and  my 
life  is  preserved."  Compare  this  with  Hosea 
xii.  3, — *'  He  took  his  brother  by  the  heel  in  the 
womb,  and  by  his  strsngth  he  had  power  with 
God ;  yea,  he  had  power  over  the  Angel,  and  pre- 
vailed ;  he  wept  and  made  supplication  unto  him ; 
he  found  him  in  Bethel,  and  there  he  spake  with 
us  ;  even  the  Lord  God  of  hosts  ;  the  Lord  is  his 
memorial."  I  ask  whether  the  angel  here  (who 
is  Christ)  is  not,  in  the  very  term  Angel,  repre- 
sented as  in  some  sense  distinct  from  God  the  Fa- 
ther ;  and  yet,  he  is  God,  "  even  the  Lord  God 
of  hosts,"  whose  memorial  is  Jehovah  ? 

Read  the  description  given  of  the  Jehovah  of 
hosts,  in  Isai.  vi  :  His  train  filling  the  temple  ;  the 
winged  Seraphim  covering  their  faces  and  their 
feet  before  him,  and  crying.  Holy,  holy,  holy  is  the 
Jehovahof  hosts  ;  the  whole  earth  is  full  of  his 
glory."  The  prophet  cries,  "  Wo  is  me,  for  I  am 
undone  !  For  I  am  a  man  of  unclean  lips,  and  I 
dwell  among  a  people  of  unclean  hps  ;  and  mine 
eyes  have  seen  the  King,  the  Lord  of  hosts." 
And  he  heard  the  voice  of  Jehovah,  saying, 
^'  Whom  shall  I  send,  and  who  will  go  for  us  ?" 


72 

None  can  doubt  but  this  persoQ  was  the  very  God. 

He  speaks  by  his  own  authority  ;  *'  Whom  shall  I 
send  r\  And  he  is  plural ;  '"  W  ho  will  ^o  for  us  ?" 
We  must  believe  this  Jehovah  of  hosts  is  the  very 
God.  Yet  the  evangelist  teaches,  that  he  was 
Christ.  John  xii.  41,  speaking  of  Christ,  "  These 
things  said  Esaias  when  he  saw  his  glory,  and  spake 
of  him." 

In  Isai.  viii.  13, — we  read,  "  Sanctify  the  Lord 
of  hosts  himself,  and  let  him  be  your  fear,  and  let 
him  be  your  dread.  And  he  shail  be  for  a  saxictu- 
ary  ;  but  for  a  stone  of  stumbling,  and  for  a  rock 
of  oifence  to  both  the  houses  of  Israel ;  for  a  gin, 
and  for  a  snare  to  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem.^' 
But  inspiration  applies  what  is  here  said  of  the 
"•  Lord  of  hosts  himself/'  to  Christ.  1  Pet.  ii.  7, 
8  ;  ^'  Unto  you  therefore,  who  believe,  he  is  pre- 
cious. But  unto  them  who  are  disobedient,  the 
stone,  which  the  builders  disallowed,  the  same  is 
made  the  Head  of  the  corner  ;  and  a  stone  of  stum- 
bling, and  a  rock  of  oflence,  even  to  them,  who 
stumble  at  the  word,  being  disobedient ;  whereun- 
to  also  they  were  appointed."  "  The  stone,  which 
the  builders  refused,  the  same  is  become  the  head 
of  the  corner.''  ''  This  is  the  stone,  which  is  set 
at  naught  by  you  builders."  Jesus  Christ  then,  is 
the  "  Jehovah  of  hosts  himself." 

Christ  is  the  Lord  God  of  the  holy  prophets-. 
Rev.  xxii.  6,  "■  The  Lord  God  of  the  holy  proph- 
ets sent  his  Angel  to  show  unto  his  servants  the 
things,  which  must  shortly  be  done."  Compared 
•with  verse  16.  ''I  Jesus  have  sent  mine  Angel  to 
testify  unto  you  tliese  things  in  the  churches." 
Here  our  Saviour  (as  though  with  evident  design) 
teaches,  that  He  is  ''  the  Lord  God  of  the  holy 
prophets."  We  accordingl}  read  of  the  prophets, 
1  Pet.  i.  1 1 ,"  Searching  what,  and  what  manner 


ot  iiine  (he  Spirit  of  Christ,  thai  was  in  them,  did 
sijiijily,  when  it  iestitied  hetbrehand  the  sulierings 
ot"  Ciiil?t,  and  the  glory,  that  should  follow."  The 
ancient  prophets  then,  were  inspired  by  tlie  Spir- 
it of  Christ.  But  '•  all  Scripture  is  given  by  in- 
spiration of  God."  The  Spirit  of  Cinist  then,  is 
the  Spirit  of  God.  The  same  we  learn  in  the 
following  passages.  "  As  many  as  are  led  by  the 
Spirit  of  God,  are  the  sons  of  God."  But,  ''  if 
any  man  have  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none 
of  his."  Here  again  Christ  is  God.  In  1  Pet. 
iii.  18,  19,  we  learn,  that  Christ,  (by  his  Spirit,  in 
the  days  of  Noah,)  went  and  preached  to  the  ante- 
diluvians, who  were  now  in  prison,  when  Peter 
■wrote.  But  it  was  God,  who  spake  to  Noah,  and 
warned  the  wicked  world  through  him,  and  said, 
"  My  Spirit  shall  not  always  strive  with  man." 
In  these  passages  then,  we  are  taught  infallibly, 
that  the  Spirit  of  Christ  is  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  and 
the  Spirit  of  God  is  the  Spirit  of  Christ :  And  that 
hence  Christ  is  God. 

God  himself  addresses  Christ  as  God  ;  which 
clearly  decides  Christ's  distinct  Personality,  and 
yet  his  Unity  in  the  Godhead.  See  Heb.  i.  8  ; 
•'  Unto  the  Son  he  (God)  saith.  Thy  throne,  O  God, 
is  forever  and  ever."  Could  the  Most  High  thus 
address  a  derived,  dependent  being,  w^ithout  estab- 
lishing idolatry  ?  Could  he  do  it,  without  teaching 
the  universe  to  have  another  God  before  him  ? 
Could  he  do  it,  and  yet  say,  relative  to  himself, 
"  Thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  him 
only  shalt  thou  serve  ?^'  I  am  God  ;  beside  me 
there  is  none  else  ;  I  know  not  any."* 

*   Some  have  attempted   to   insinua'e,  that  the  above  text, 

Heb.  i.  8,  will  bear  this  interpretation,  "Unto  thf  Son  he  saith, 

God  is  thy  throne  forever  and  ever."     Arjy  who  wby  esteem  it 

worth  their  while  to  read  a  lull  refutation  of  this  extraordinary;, 

T 


74 

The  text  under  consideration,  is  a  quotation  of 
Psalnn  xlv.  6  :  where  David  says,  "  Thy  throne  O 
God.  is  forever  and  ever."  David  addressed  the 
words  to  "  the  King. — fairer  than  the  children  of 
men — the  most  Mighty,  whose  right  hand  should 
teach  him  terrible  things — under  whom  the  people 
shall  fall.''  Our  translation  is  a  literal  rendering 
of  the  Hebrew.  And  its  addressing  Christ,  as 
God,  accords  with  the  tenor  of  the  sacred  word. 
No  proper  objection  then,  can  be  made  against  it. 
The  text  to  the  Hebrews  is  a  literal  quotation  of  it. 
And  there  we  learn  from  inspiration,  that  it  is  an 
addiess  from  God  the  Father  to  Christ.  And  does 
it  not  most  positively  establish  Christ-s  distinct 
Personality  in  the  Godhead  ;  and  yet  his  being 
one  with  God,  and  the  very  God  ? 

In  Rom.  ix.  5,  Jesus  Christ  is  said  to  be  "  Over 
all,  God  blessed  for  ever."  In  1  Pet.  i.  l,heis 
"  God  our  Saviour."  In  Titus  ii.  13,  he  is  "  the 
great  God  and  our  Saviour."-^ 

In  1  John  V.  20,  it  is  said  of  Jesus  Christ,  '*This 
is  the  true  God,  and  eternal  life."  In  Isai.  ix.  6, 
Christ  is  called,  '^  the  Mighty  God,  the  everlasting 
Father."  In  Jer.  xxiii.  6,  he  is  *'  the  Jehovah 
our  righteousness."  And  in  Ptev.  i.  8,  he  is  by  his 

forced  and  most  nnuatnral  rendering  (f  fhat  clause  of  the  text, 
may  find  it  iu  the  Panop'iist  for  .AJay,  181 !,  page  :;4-l— 9.  It 
would  be  wonderful  indeed  for  God  to  r^lif  smt  Idmself,  as 
the  throne  of  one  of  hi?  croatnres  !  This  wouM  be  unprece- 
dented in  the  Bible!  Nothinof  is  too  glaring;  for  some  men  to 
undertake,  to  undermine  the  cffensive  sentiments  of  holy  writ. 
We  read  of  hamiiing  the  word  of  God  deceitfully.  And  this 
.9  an  evil  not  uncommon,  at  the  present  -.lay. 

*  Greek — "  ton  megalou  Theou,  kai  Soteros  hcmoon." — 
The  article  put  before  great,  belongs  equally  to  Saviour,  as  to 
God,  not  being  added  there,  as  it  must  have  been,  had  not 
Saviour  stood  in  apposition,  being  the  same  with  the  preced- 
ing, God  : — A  full  proof,  that  the  sense  is  this  ;  Jesus  Christ  '? 
llie  great  God,  and  our  Saviouu. 


own  testimony  *'  the  Alpha  and  Omega,  who  is, 
and  was,  and  is  to  come,  the  Almighty."  Is  a  de- 
rived, dependent  being,  "  the  Almighty  ?'*  Most 
certainly  not.  Should  any  doubt  whether  it  is 
Christ,  who  here  speaks  : — the  affirmative  is  in- 
contestable ;  as  any  will  see,  who  will  compare 
Rev.  i.  8 — 18  ;  ii.  8.  Here  it  was  Jesus  Christ 
(in  the  midst  of  the  golden  candlesticks,  and  who 
had  been  dead  and  was  alive,)  who  called  himself 
the  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  First  and  the  Last,  the 
Almighty. 

In  Isai.  xliv.  6,  we  read  ;  '•  Thus  saith  the  Lord, 
the  King  of  Israel,  and  his  Redeemer,  the  Lord 
of  host?,  I  am  the  First,  and  I  am  the  Last,  and  be- 
side me  there  is  no  God."  But  Jesus  Christ,  in 
the  above  passages  in  the  Revelation,  applies 
this  to  himself.  Hence  we  have  his  testimony, 
that  he  is  the  Jehovah,  the  King  of  Israel,  and 
his  Redeemer,  the  Jehovah  of  hosts. 

From  the  great  work,  which  was  assigned  to  the 
Mediator,  light  is  cast  upon  this  important  subject. 
I  ask  the  conscience  of  every  person,  taught  in  tha 
sentimenls  of  the  gospel.  Was  not  an  infinite  atone- 
ment necessary,  according  to  the  tenor  of  the 
Bible,  to  take  away  the  sin  of  the  world  ?  Was 
not  the  righteousness  of  an  infinite  Being,  or 
the  righteousness  of  God;  necessary  to  avail  for 
lost  man,  and  redeem  him  from  sin  and  hell, 
and  entitle  him  to  heaven  ?  Does  not  the  whole 
economy  of  gospel  grace  proceed  on  the  ground 
of  an  atonement  made  by  Christ,  adequate  to  the 
eternal  torments  of  guilty  man  ?  and  of  a  right- 
eousness wrought  out  by  Christ,  adequate  to  that 
exceeding  and  eternal  weight  of  glory,  freely  ten- 
dered in  our  fallen  world  ;  and  which  will  be  con- 
ferred on  all  the  chosen  of  God  ?  Though  pardon 
and  salvation   are  of  free  grace  ;  yet  the  scheme 


76 

of  grace  teaches,   that  God  would  not  have  beett 
just,  had  he  bestowed  or   tendered   thenn  on  any- 
ground,   short  of   a   sufficient    exhibition's  being 
made  on  man's  behalf,  of  justice  and  righteousness, 
to  magnify  the  divine  law.  Here  the  infinite  riches 
of  ;^race  are  exhibited  ;  that  God  would  not  only 
pardon  and  save  lost  man  ;  but  would  be  at  the  in- 
finite expense   necessary  to  open  the  way  for  the 
proper  bestowment  of  pardon  and  salvation.     But 
could  any  thing  be  equal  to   this  redemption  from 
hell,  and  title  to  heaven,  short  of  an  infinite  atone- 
ment, and  an  infinite  righteousness  ?  A  foundation 
short  of  this  must  have  been  infinitely  insufficient 
for  the   eternal  superstructure,   which  was  to  be 
built  upon  it.    To  say,  that  God  might,  in  order  to 
confer  on  his  Son  an  infinite  honor,  determine,  that 
an  atonement  and  righteousness,  which  a  finite  Son 
could  effect,  should  be  declared  and  viewed  as  of 
infinite  avail,  appears  preposterous.     For  it  must, 
after   all.  appear   to  the  intelligent  universe,  thct 
the  ground   presented,  as   the   only  foundation  of 
the  pardon  and  salvation    of  guilty  man.  is  in  fact 
finite.  This  must  of  necessity  operate  to  the  amaz- 
ing dishonor  of  God. 

All  the  torments  of  the  miserable  in  hell  cannot, 
in  any  conceivable  time,  atone  for  their  sins.  The 
certainty  of  this  appears  from  the  fact,  that  the 
damned  must  suffer  forever.  Can  it  be  admitted 
as  possible  then,  that  the  sufferings  of  a  Saviour, 
who  is  only  derived  and  dependent,  can  make  an 
adequate  atonement  for  the  sins  of  the  whole 
world  ?  and  this  too,  in  so  short  a  time,  as  Jesus 
of  Nazareth  suffered  ?  The  idea,  of  resolving  this 
thinf^into  the  divine  sovereignty,  or  suggesting, 
that  God  has  a  right  to  say,  that  the  atonement  and 
righteousness  of  his  own  finite  dependent  Son, 
^Imll  be  viewed  as  of  infinite  avail,  can  uever  sa- 


77 

tisfy  a  rational  being.  For  the  question  will  arise^ 
Wl\y  might  not  God  as  well  pardon  and  save,  with- 
out any  atonement  made,  or  righteousness  wrought 
out,  in  behalf  of  man?  Or  if  something  done, 
which  is  tinite,  may  be  pronounced  sufficient,  why 
might  not  an  Angel  have  done  the  work  of  the  fi- 
nite Mediator  ?  which  work,  at  God's  sovereign 
word,  should  be  pronounced  sufficient  for  the  sal- 
vation of  lost  man  ?  Yea,  why  might  not  God  as 
well  dispense  with  all  his  exhibitions  of  justice 
and  propriety,  in  his  vast  kingdom  ;  and  let  a  sys- 
tem of  merely  arbitrary  words  be  substituted  in 
their  stead  ?  Is  not  God's  infinite  authority  suffi- 
cient to  have  those  words  believed,  though  all  his 
administration  be  in  contradiction  to  them  ?  Could 
he  not  work  miracles,  and  cause  all  his  subjects  to 
believe  his  contradictory  assertions  '?  IVlany  such 
questions  occur  to  the  mind,  on  the  suggestion, 
that  God  may  say,  that  a  finite  Son  shall  make  an 
adequate  atonement  ;  or  shall  do  what  shall  be 
esteemed  sufficient  for  the  eternal  salvation  of  his 
Church. 

But  we  must  remember,  that  God's  government 
is  for  the  benefit  of  his  finite  creatures.  And  they 
must  be  able  eventually  to  discern  an  uniformity 
and  fitness  in  all  his  works.  One  thing  must  be 
proportioned  to  another  ;  and  the  divine  adminis- 
tration must  accord  with  the  principles  of  truth 
and  justice  ;  or  his  glory  will  be  proportionably 
diminished.  Words,  without  corresponding  deeds, 
are  falsehoods.  But  God  cannot  lie,  neither  in 
word  nor  deed.  Christ's  atonement  and  right- 
eousness then,  must  be  infinite. 

But  how  could  a  finite  Saviour  make  an  infinite 

atonement  ?     Yea,  how  could  such  an  one  make 

any  atonement  at  all  ?    Or  how  could  he  work  out 

a  righteousness  for  others  ?     Must  oot  a  derived 

7* 


78 

being  owe  personally  to  God,  accordinij  to  the  im- 
mutable religion  of  nature,  as  well  as  of  Revela- 
tion, all  the  service,  that  he  is  able  to  render? 
Every  dependent  being  must  owe  to  God  the  love 
and  service  of  his  whole  heart,  soul,  strength  and 
mind.  H-ow  then  could  the  righteousness  of  a  de- 
rived being  be  of  avail  for  any  one  beside  himself? 
much  less  of  that  intiiiite  avail,  needed  for  the  sal- 
vation of  the  fallen  world  ?  Yea.  how  could  it  b^ 
"  the  righteousness  of  God  ?"  How  could  Christ 
be,  •'  Jehovah  wir  righteousness  /" 

To  render  a  derived  Saviour  adequate  to  the 
work,  for  which  Christ  was  designed  ;  or  to  give 
an  infinite  weight  to  his  atonement,  righteousness, 
and  administration  ;  the  advocates  for  such  a  Sa- 
viour must  have  recourse  to  the  indv»eliing  of 
the  fulness  of  the  Father  in  Christ.  In  this  case, 
the  sufiiciency  of  the  Mediator  is  rested  on  the  in- 
finite fuhiess  of  Divinity,  that  dwells  in  him.  But 
if  recourse  must  be  had,  after  all,  to  the  iniinitude 
of  the  indwelling  Divinity,  in  the  derived  Son  of 
God;  what  is  gained  by  supposing  the  nature  of 
Christ,  that  actually  suffered,  to  be  superior  to 
human  nature  ?  Nothing  is  gained,  except  that 
■*mR\\  addition  of  merit,  which  may  be  supposed 
to  result  from  the  superiority  of  this  derived  na- 
ture over  human  nature.  But  how  tritiing  must 
this  be.  when  compared  with  the  infinitude  of  the 
indwelling  fulness  of  the  Father,  on  which  depen- 
dence is  really  made  /  This  infinitude  of  merit 
needs  no  such  addition.  Infinity  of  merit  must  be 
tufficient  without  it.  Such  an  addition  goes  not  to 
the  point,  on  which  dependence  is  finally  made,-— 
the  infinitude  of  the  indwelling  fulness  of  the  Fa- 
ther. But  no  Trinitarian  doubles  but  the  fulness 
of  the  Godhead  dwells  in  Christ.  The  Trinita- 
rian rests  the  infinitude  efthe  atonement  on  the 


79 

anderivcd  Deity,  who  dwells  in  the   man  Jesus 
Christ*     And  the  opponent  (who  believes  at  all  in 
an  atonement)  mast  have  recourse  to  the  indwell- 
ini^  Adness  of  God,  in  Christ,  to  render  his  atone- 
ment of  suiiicicnt  avail.     What  then  has  he  gain- 
ed by  rei>resenting  Christ  as  possessed  of  a  nature 
snperiour  to  all  creatures,  aside  from  the  indwell- 
int;  fulness  of  Cxod  ?  For  he  does  not  with  this  iind 
Cnrist  adequate  to  the  work  of  mediation,  without 
the  indwelling  fulness  of  God.     And  the  Trinita- 
rian finds  Christ   fully  adequate  to  the  w^ork,  with 
the  indwelling  of  his  proper   Deity,  wuthout  sup- 
posing his  created  nature  to  be  more  than  human. 
The  sentiment,  that  to  atone  for  the  sins  of  the 
world,  the  gufiierings  of  the  Saviour  must,   in  some 
sense  be  deemed  intinite,  most  clearly  lies  at  the 
foundcition   of  the   Christian   system.     "  Without 
the   s-hedding  of  blood,   there  is   no    remission." 
And  this  blood  must  be  of  intinite  avail.      It  must 
be  (as  we  are  taught  by  inspiration  to  view  it) 
"  the  blood  of  God."     "  Feed  the  church  of  God, 
which  he  hath  purrhased  wnthhis  own  blood;*'  (Acts 
XX.  2.3.)     The  ears  of  some  are  w^ounded   by  the 
phrpse,  the  blood  of  God.     I  believe  as   much  as 
they  that  the  invisible  God  isan  infiinte  Spirit:  And 
that  a  pure  Spirit  hath  not  desh  and  bones. or  blood. 
Yet  1  feel  myself  fully  warranted  to  use  the  phrase, 
the  blood  of  God  ;  to  say  that  this  atoned  for  sin  ; 
and  that  without  the  shedding  of  such  blood,  there 
could  be   no  remission.     The  abundant  language 
of  the  Bible,  representing  Christ  as  God,   and  yet 
as  dying  for  sin,   warrants  the  phrase,  the  blood  of 
God,    as   that   which   has    ransomed   fallen   man. 
And  the  te^t,  in  Acts  xx.  23,  just  quoted,  fully 
w^arrants  it.* 

*  The  correctne??'  of  our  rp?i'\'.i\^  of  this  text,  i?  hysome  call- 
ed ia  questioa.     la  some  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament,  it- 


80 

The  siitFeriiigs  of  Christ  must  have  teen  the  suf- 
ferings of  God  in  a  sense,  that  was  either  real,  or 
constituted.  A  person  really  divine  either  must 
exhibit  himseU' as  capable  of  suffering,  and  really 
sutiering  for  sin  ;  or  else  he  must  adopt  a  creature 
into  sucii  a  constituted  union  with  himself,  as  that 
both  this  divine  and  this  created  nature  shall  go  to 
constitute  one  complete  Person  :  And  the  suiier- 
ings  of  the  created  nature  shall  be  esteemed  as  the 
suiierings  of  the  whole  Person,  or  the  sutlerings  of 
God.     There  is  no  other  possible  sense,  in  which 

is  foimJ,  '•^  Feed  the  church  of  the  Lord,  which  he  hath  purcha- 
sed With  Ins  own  blood."  And  in  some,  '^Feed  the  church  of 
the  Lord  and  God.'"  Bat  1  am  satisfied  with  our  reading,  for 
the  iollowiug  reasons : 

1.  It  accords  with  the  tennr  of  the  Bible,  to  speak  of  the 
church  as  the  church  of  ^od  ;  and  to  call  Jesus  Christ,  God.  I 
have  already  shown  in  this  section,  and  mean  to  show  more 
fully,  that  Christ  is  abundantly  called,  and  represented  to  be, 
God  ;  both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  ;  the  mighty  God, 
the  great  God,  the  true  God.  The  reading-,  therefore,  "Feed 
the  church  of  Qrod.  which  he  hath  purchased  with  his  own 
blood,"  fully  accords  with  the  general  language  of  the  Bible. 
And  the  sentiment  of  this  reading  forms  a  hinge,  on  which  hangs 
the  salvation  of  the  Church.  For  there  can  be  no  medium  be- 
tween the  blood  of  God.  and  that  of  a  mere  creaturs.  But  if 
tiiere  be  no  atonement  made  for  sin,  but  what  is  made  by  a 
mere  cr'?ature,  where  is  tlie  foundation  of  the  Christian's  hope  'f 
Admitting  the  reading,  "the  church  of  the  Lord,  which  he  pur- 
chased with  his  own  blood,"  nothing  is  gained  by  the  opponent. 
For  we  are,  in  that  case,  warranted,  by  the  whole  tenor  of  the 
Bible,  to  annex  to  the  term  Lord  here,  its  highest  sense,  Jeho- 
vah, who  IS  the  mighty  God.  He  has  redeemed  the  church  by 
hi?  'iwn  blood.  The  church,  then,  is  bought  with  the  blood  of 
God.  The  propriety  of  the  phrase  is  founded  in  the  constitu- 
ted oneness  between  the  second  Person  in  the  Trinity,  and  the 
man  Jesus  Christ,  as  will  be  shown. 

2.  The  reading  "  the  church  of  God,"  is  found  in  eight  manu- 
scripts. And  the  following  ancient  fathers  have  quoted  the 
text  according  to  our  reading  :  Epiphanius,  Basil  and  Ambrose 
in  the  fourth  ceatury  :  Cassian,  Ibas  and  Celostine,  in  the  fifth  : 
and  Fulgen'.ius,  Primesius,  and  Bede,  iu  the  tixth.  See  Paao- 
plist  for  April,  1811,  page  500. 


81 

the  sufferings  of  the  Mediator  can  be  of  infinite 
avail,  as  being  the  suiferings  of  God.  But  Christ's 
sutfering?  are  esteemed  the  sutferings  of  God  :"And 
his  bJood  is  esteemed  of  infinite  avail,  as  the  blood 
of  God.  Therefore  real  Doity  did  dwell  in  the 
man  Jesus,  in  such  a  sense,  as  to  constitute  thena 
One,  the  Person  of  the  Mediator.  This  connec- 
tion of  the  two  natures  is  a  mystery  ;  but  it  is  no 
contradiction,  nor  absurdity  ;  it  is  not  above  the 
power  of  God  to  eifect. 

No  doubt  many  plausible  things  may  be  said,  (if 
men  are  disposed,)  against  the  divine  economy  of 
constituting  such  a  connexion  between  a  Person 
f^ally  divine,  and  a  created  nature,  as  that  the  suf- 
ferings of  the  latter  shall  be  esteemed  af  the  suf- 
ferings of  God.  The  objector,  if  he  be  hardy 
enough  !  may  say,  It  is  all  a  mere  pretence.  God 
did  not  suffer  at  all.  "  He  only  substituted  a  crea* 
tare  to  suffer  in  h's  stead  :  like  the  king,  who  engpv^ 
ged  to  die,  and  who  fulfilled  his  promise  by  marry- 
ing a  poor  woman,  thus  becoming  one  with  her, 
and  causing  her  to  die  ;  which  conduct  would  not 
be  very  honorable  !"  But  let  me  ask,  what  point 
in  Divinity  is  not  capable  of  being  cavilled  at  ? 
What  point  of  divine  truth  has  not  been  attacked, 
and  presented  in  a  base  light!  Things  seemingly 
plauaible  may  be  said  in  opposition  to  every  cardi- 
nal doctrine  in  theology.  But  in  view  of  the 
above  objections,  let  me  inquire  ;  do  not  the  same 
difficulties  attend  the  scheme  of  our  opponents,  so 
far  as  they  rely  on  the  constituted  indwelling  of 
the  fulness  of  God.  to  give  an  infinite  dignity  to 
the  derived  Son  of  God,  and  an  infinite  merit  to 
his  atonement  ?  But  their  great  reliance  is  on  the 
dignity  aud  fulness  of  God  the  Father,  to  furnish 
their  Mediator  for  his  work.  The  relief  is  too 
.&mail  to  be  noted,  to  say,  that  the  derived  Persoa 


82 

of  their  Mediator,  in  whom  the  Father  dwells,  is 
very  far  i^reater  thna  hamm  ;  being  firmed  of  the 
Father's  essence  !  For  to  wliat  does  all  the  diifer- 
ence  between  derived  nU-u'es  a-noiint,  when  com- 
pared with  the  infinite  Gdd?  Before  him  all  de- 
pendent beings  si.ik  to  nothing !  The  reliance  of 
cur  opponents,  who  hold  to  a  literally  derived 
Son  of  God,  is  in  fact  solely  on  the  Father,  exclu- 
sively of  any  other  truly  divine  Person  in  the 
Godhead  (for  they  believe  in  no  other)  for  both 
the  existence,  and  ail  the  ability  of  the  Son  of  God 
to  atone  for  Sin,  or  to  officiate  in  any  of  the  du- 
ties of  the  mediatorial  office.  There  can  be  no 
adequate  merit  or  di'gnity  attending  them,  but  what 
comes  frofn  God  the  Father.  Yet  some  of  our 
opponents  represent  the  Son  as  having  made  the 
atonement,  and  as  doing  all  the  work  of  the  Medi- 
ator. And  some  of  them  will  adinit  of  it  as  an 
ii'.imlte  atorsement :  a  mediation  of  infinite  effica- 
cy ;  while  to  render  it  thus,  their  reliance  must  be 
on  the  indwelling,  and  the  infinite  fulness  of  the 
Father.  Do  not  the  same  objections  then,  stated 
above,  apply,  with  as  great  force  to  their  own 
scheme  ?  Most  certainly  !  for,  did  God  the  Father 
siuTer,  in  the  sufferings  of  Christ?  And  if  not,  how 
could  his  infinite  fulness  and  dignity  add  any 
weight  to  the  sufferings  of  the  finite  Son  ?  But  if 
the  opponent  can  imagine,  that  the  infinite  fiilness 
and  dignity  of  the  Father  can  add  an  infinite 
weight  to  the  atonement  made  by  the  derived  and 
finite  Son  of  God ;  why  can  it  not  as  well  be  ad- 
mitted, that  the  constituted  union  of  real  Deity 
(the  second  Person  in  the  Trinity)  with  the  man 
Jesus  Christ,  may  give  an  infinite  dignity  to  the 
atonement  made  by  him  ?  Why  shall  the  latter 
scheme,  any  more  than  the  former,  be  represented 
as  a  mere  pretence  ?  But,  mav  not  God  constitute 


83 


a  connection  between  one  of  the  infinite  Persons 
in  the  Trinity,  and  the  man  Jesus  Christ,  so  that 
they  shall  properly  be  called  and  viewed  one  ?  Is 
not  God  able  to  do  this  ?  And  has  he  not  a  right 
to  do  it,  whatever  difficulties  or  ob  ectiotts  may 
arise  concerning  it  in  tlie  minds  of  fallen  man  ? 
All  connections  in  creation  deper.d  on  th.e  sove- 
reign will  of  God.  Suppose  God  could  previous- 
ly have  consulted  man,  relative  to  many  of  these 
connections ;  as,  that  between  maii-s  soul  and 
body  ;  that  between  God's  own  sovereign,  uni- 
versal aa;ency  in  the  government  of  the  world, 
(making  all  thint^s  for  himself,  even  the  wicked 
for  the  day  of  evil ;  Prov.  xvi.  4.)  and  the  free 
agency  and  accountability  of  man  ;  wliat  wo  Jd 
the  wisdom  of  man  have  replied  :  Could  behave 
been  God's  counsellor  ?  Inexplicable  diiliciiicies 
would  have  appeared.  But  God  has  establiibed 
these,  and  all  other  created  cor.neclioi;5  in  vhe 
universe.  The  laws  of  nature  are  of  his  ordain- 
ing: and  it  is  in  vain  for  man  to  object.  And  no 
less  vain  or  impious  is  it.  to  ob-ect  to  the  constitu- 
ted connexion  between  the  real  Deity  and  human- 
ity of  Christ,  which  uniiediy  coiistitnte  his  Per- 
son. The  uniort  is  constitjled.  It  is  not  essen- 
tial to  either  natiire.  But  it  was  constituted  by 
the  sovereign  will  of  Him,  who  constituted  all  the 
created  connexions  in  the  uriverse.  Man  may 
repeal  the  question  of  Nicodemns  in  ai'other  case, 
"  How  can  these  things  be  ?"  This  question  may 
be  asked  concerning  some  part  of  every  work  of 
God,  not  excepting  the  smallest  atom  ;  and  no 
man  can  answer  it.  Man  is  of  yesterday,  and 
knows  nothing !  He  is  surrounded  with  an  uni- 
verse of  wonders  !  Is  it  incredible  then,  that  the 
infinite  Creator  of  this  universe  should  have  un- 
fathomable depths  in  his  name,  and  the  mode  of 


S4 

his  existence  ?  Is  it  incredible,  that  He,  whose 
name  is  U'onderful,  and  whom  no  man  knowelh, 
hut  the  Father,  has  things  relative  to  his  Person, 
which  exceed  the  philosophy  of  vain  man  ?  "■  Canst 
thou  by  searching  tind  out  God  ?"  Who  shall  ob- 
ject, or  w  hy,  if  God  please  to  say,  that  the  human- 
ity of  Christ  shall  be  taken  nito  such  an  union  with 
one  in  the  Godhead,  that  the  blood  of  the  human 
nature,  shed  for  sin.  shall  be  called  and  esteemed 
the  blood  of  God,  to  make  an  infinite  atonement ; 
and  the  infinite  glory  of  underived  Deity  shall  be 
possessed  by  this  w^onderfui  Person  of  two  na- 
tures ?  Shall  man  say,  that  such  inexplicable  things 
attend  the  consideration  of  such  a  Person,  that 
they  cannot  believe  in  him  ?  This,  alas,  would  be 
nothing  new !  "  Blessed  is  he,  whosoever  shall  not 
be  oiT*^aded  in  me."  Christ  has  long  since  been 
to  some  a  stumbling  block ;  and  to  some  foolish- 
ness. But  to  others  he  is  -'  the  power  of  God, 
and  the  wisdom  of  God."  Would  such  a  connex- 
ion, as  lias  been  stated,  between  the  two  natures, 
human  and  divine,  (supposing  God  had  revealed 
the  certainty  of  it,  in  language,  which  could  ad- 
mit of  no  doubt)  amount  to  an  absurdity  ?  Would 
it  evidently  degrade  the  divine  character?  If  not ; 
who  can  say,  that  such  a  connexion  does  not  in  fact 
exist  ?  For  the  Word  of  God  does  read,  as  though 
this  were  the  case.  And  thus  it  has  been  under- 
stood, by  the  body  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  for 
many  centuries. 

Relative  to  Christ's  being  of  underived  Divinity, 
let  it  be  further  noted  ;  if  he  were  not  unaerived, 
would  God  tiic  Father  have  asrnbed  to  him  the 
work  of  creation  ?  and  would  he  have  ascribed  to 
him  immutability  ?  Urito  the  Son,  God  saith,.  Heb. 
i.  10, — "  Thou  Lord,  in  the  beginning,  hast  laid 
.  the  foundations  of  the  earth;  and  the  heavens  are 


85 

the  works  of  thine  hands.  They  shail  perish,  but 
thou  lemainest;  and  they  all  shall  wax  old,  as  doth 
a  garment  ;  and  as  a  vesture  shalt  thou  fold  them 
up,  a!id  they  shall  be  changed  ;  but  thou  art  the 
same,  and  thy  years  shail  not  fail."  Here  immu- 
tability, as  weii  as  creation,  is  ascribed  by  God  the 
Father  to  Christ ; — '•  Thou  shalt  endure — thou  art 
the  same." — As  in  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  xiii. 
8.  '*  Jesus  Christ  the  same,  yesterday,  to  day,  and 
forever."  Can  such  repeated  divine  ascriptions 
of  immutability  be  applied  to  a  derived,  depen- 
dent being  ? 

And  couid  such  a  being  create  the  world  ? 
Would  the  intinite  God  repeatedly  ascribe  the  work 
of  creation  to  a  finite  dependent  being  ;  and  say 
to  him,  '*  Thou  Lord,  hast  laid  the  foundations  of 
the  earth  ;  and  the  heavens  are  the  work  of  thy 
hand  ?"  Are  not  here  two  persons  ;  and  the  se- 
cond, as  well  as  the  lirst,  really  God  ?  The  earth 
and  the  heavens  are  the  v>ork  of  Christ's  hands. 
Yet  we  read,  ••  He,  that  made  all  things,  is  God." 
"  The  heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God,  and  the 
firmament  showeth  his  handy  works."  Is  not 
Christ  then,  God  ?  We  are  taught  Heb.  i.  2,  that 
God  made  the  worlds  by  his  Son  ;  or  by  this  second 
Person,  now  known  as  his  Son.  Does  this  import, 
that  Christ  created  the  worlds  only  by  a  delegated 
agency  ?  Or  that  his  agency  in  creation  was  only 
such  as  that,  by  which  holy  men  wrought  miracles  ? 
Some  pretend  this.  But  the  Jehovah  of  hosts, 
abundantly  in  the  prophet  Isaiah, assumed  creation 
to  himself,  as  one  of  his  essential  distinctions  from 
false  gods.  Did  this  Jehovah  of  hosts  hold  this 
distinction  only  by  a  delegated  power  or  privilege? 
If  this  were  all,  his  thus  creating  the  world  was  no 
evidence  of  his  real  Divinity  ;  any  more  than 
8 


iMoses'  working  miracles   before  Pharaoh,  was  an 
evidence  of  his  real  Divinity. 

The  idea,  of  God''s  creating  the  world  bj  Christ. 
is  this,  (as  we  may  conceive  ;)  the  agency  of  the 
whole  Godhead,  was,  in  that  work,  represented  as 
exercised   tlirough  the  second   Person  in  the  Tri- 
nity.    He,  having  entered  into  the  covenant  of  re- 
demption with  the  Father,  exercised  the  power  of 
tlie  Godhead   in  creating  the  world.     The  agency 
of  the  three   is  represented   as  manifesting  itself 
through  him.     Accordingly  each    of  the  three,  in 
diiierent  sacred  passages,  is  represented  as  doing 
the   work.     But  it  is  more  peculiarly  ascribed  to 
tlje  second  Person,  as  though   the   agency   of  the 
three  came  into  operation  through  him.     But  it  is 
so  represented  in  a  sense,  which,  implies,  that  this 
second  Person  is  the  very  God  ; — an  original  iu  the 
work  ;  and   not   merely  a    dependent  instrument, 
by  whom   God   w^rought.      God  never  did   (nor 
could)  say   to  Peter,  Thou,  Peter,  hast  healed  the. 
lame  man  at  the  beautiful  gate,  and  raised  Dorcas: 
Ti)ese  things  are  tlie  works  of  thy  hands.  Nothing"^ 
like  this  was  ever  said,  by  the  Most  High,  to  a  crea- 
ture, by  whom  he  himself  had  wrought  miracles.  ^ 
But  the  utmost  care  was  taken  to  distinguish  be- 
tween the  Deity,  and  the  instruments,  that  did  the 
work  ;  and  to  have  all   the   praise  given  to   the 
former.     Moses,  the  type  of  Christ,  (and  who  was 
admittted  to  the  greatest  intimacy  with  God,  of  all 
the  men   on   earth  ;)  yet   for   seeming   to  take  to 
liimselfsome  of  the  praise  of  his  biinging  the  water 
from  the  rock,  was  shut  out  of  the  promised  land  ! 
Instruments  of  divine  operations,  (human  or  ange- 
lic,) have  been  careful  to  take  none  of  the  praise  of 
tlieir  operations  to  them.selves  ;  but  to  give  it  all  to 
God.     God  informs,  that  he  is  a  jealous  God,  and 
will  never  give  his  glorv  to  another.     Yet  abun> 


87 

dantl}'  God  ascribes  the  wo.k  of  creation,  and  oi 
upholding  all  things,  to  Christ ;  and  this  in  the 
most  positive  language.  "  In  the  beginning  was  the 
"W'ord,  and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word 
was  God.  The  same  was  in  the  beginning  with 
God.  All  things  were  made  by  him  ;  (the  Word, 
or  Christ)  and  without  him  was  not  any  thing 
made,  that  was  made." — '•  The  world  was  made 
by  him."  "  For  by  him  were  all  things  created, 
that  are  in  heaven,  and  that  are  in  earth,  visible, 
and  invisible,  whether  they  be  thrones,  or  domi- 
nions, or  principalities,  or  powers:  all  things  were 
created  by  him,  and  for  him  ;  and  he  is  before  all 
things,  and  by  him  all  things  consist."  Col.  i, 
13 — 17.  "  And  upholding  ail  things  by  the  word 
of  his  power."  These  things  are  said  expressly 
of  Jesus  Christ.  But  can  all  this  be  said,  by  the 
God  of  truth,  of  a  tinite,  derived,  dependent  Being? 
The  parts  of  creation  above  enumerated,  contain 
all  created,  dependent  beings,  in  heaven  or  earth. 
Surely  then,  Christ  himself,  (who  created  them,) 
cannot  be  among  them,  a  finite,  dependent  being. 
And  who  can  believe  in  a  derived,  dependent 
Creator  of  all  things  ?  A  dependent  Almighty  ! 
How  could  all  things  be  said  to  be  created  for 
Christ,  as  well  as  by  him,  if  he  were  not  very  God  ? 
Are  all  things,  in  heaven  and  earth,  created  by  and 
for  a  being  distinct  from,  and  dependent  on,  the 
true  God  ?  Let  Paul  decide  this.  "  O  the  depth 
of  the  riches,  both  of  the  wisdom  and  knowledge 
of  God  !  How  unsearchable  are  his  judgments, 
and  his  ways  past  finding  out ! — For  of  him,  and 
through  him,  and  to  him  are  all  things  ;  to  whom 
be  glory  forever.  Amen."  Here  we  learn  who 
Christ,  in  the  former  passage,  is,  by  whom,  aad 
for  whom,  all  tilings  were  made.  He  is  the  very, 
unsearchable  God, in  this  latter  passage  ;  of  whom, 


88 

(hrough  whom,  and  to  whom  are  all  things  ;  t© 
w^hom  be  glory  forev^er.  Compare  these  passages 
with  Rev.  iv.  8, — where  the  four  hving  creatures, 
day  and  night,  sing  "  Holy,  holy,  holy.  Lord  God 
Almighty,  who  was,  and  is,  and  is  to  come."  They 
proceed  to  give  glory  and  honor  and  thanks  to  him, 
who  sat  on  the  throne,  and  liveth  forever  and 
ever.  The  elders  then  fall  hefore  him,  saying, 
"  Thou  art  worthy,  O  Lord,  to  receive  glory,  and 
honor,  and  power;  for  thou  hast  created  all  things; 
and  for  thy  pleasure  they  are,  and  were  created." 
Here  then  we  learn  the  sentiments  of  the  true  mi- 
nisters and  follozvers  of  Christ,  For  these  four 
living  creatures  are  emblems  of  Christ's  ministers  ; 
and  the  elders  are  emblems  of  the  members  of  his 
kingdom  of  grace.  If  we  say  the  Being  they  wor- 
ship here  is  the  infinite  Father ;  the  Son,  in  the 
other  passages,  is  identified  with  him.  For  there 
all  thini^s  were  made  by  and  for  Jesus  Christ.  But 
if  we  say,  this  is  the  Son  on  his  throne  of  the  uni- 
verse ;  (as  probably  is  the  fact ;)  we  then  acknow- 
ledge the  Son  to  be  the  Lord  God  Almighty,  re- 
ceiving the  highest  ascriptions  of  glory  and  praise 
from  all  heaven.  Is  it  possible  then,  for  any  to 
deny,  that  Christ  is  the  underived,  eternal  God, 
identified  with  the  Father  ? 

Hear  the  decision  of  Jehovah  himself.  Isai.  xliv. 
24  ;  "I  am  the  Lord,  that  maketh  all  things,  that 
stretcheth  forth  the  heavens  alone,  that  spreadeth 
forth  the  earth  by  myself."  Here  Jehovah  alone, 
and  by  himself,  created  all  things.  Yet  we  are 
expressly  and  abundantly  taught  that  Christ  creat- 
ed them.  Surely  then,  Christ  is  that  Jehovah 
himself,  who  spread  abroad  the  earth  alone. 

By  Christ  all  things  consist.  He  "  upholds  all 
things  by  the  word  of  his  power  ;"  Heb.  i.  3.  But 
ig  it  not  "  in  God  that  we  live,  move,  and  have  our 


89 

being  ?"  From  this  we  le.irn,  thai  Christ  is  God. 
In  Isaiah,  God,  "  the  high  and  lofty  One,  who 
inhabits  eternity,"  declares,  that  he  *•  dwells  also 
with  him,  who  is  of  a  contrite  and  humble  spirit, 
to  revive  the  spirit  of  the  humble,  and  the  heart  of 
{he  contrite  ones."  Thus  Jehovah,  who  inhabits 
eternity,  is  "  nigh  unto  them  who  are  of  a  broken 
heart  :  and  saveth  such  as  be  of  a  contrite  spirit." 
But  Christ  says  to  such,  "  I  will  not  leave  you 
comfortless  ;  I  will  come  unto  you."  He  says  to 
his  ministers,  "  Lo  I  am  with  you  always,  even  un- 
to the  end  of  the  world."  In  these,  and  similar 
promises  of  Christ,  we  learn,  that  he  is  identified 
with  ••  the  high  and  lofty  One,  who  inhabits  eter- 
nity," dwelling  with  the  humble.  Christ  says,  '•  If 
any  man  love  nie,  he  will  keep  my  words  ;  and 
my  Father  will  love  him  ;  and  we  will  come  unto 
him,  and  make  our  abode  with  him."  Here  are 
the  two  tirst  Persons  in  the  Trinity,  dwelling  with 
ev^ery  holy  soul :  Two  omniscient  Persons  :  We 
will  come  unto  every  obedient  person,  and  make 
oar  abode  with  him.  Could  Christ  speak  this,  as  a 
derived^ .dependent,  finite  being  ?  Could  such  an 
one,  \^e  at  one  and  the  same  time,  with  milhons  of 
saints,  in  dilferent  parts  of  the  universe  ?  And 
would  such  an  one  thus  rank  himself  with  the  omni- 
present God  ?  We  here  find  two  omnipresent  per- 
sons ;  God  and  Christ.  They  are  spoken  of  as 
two  ;  and  yet  abundantly  represented  as  One. 
There  is  no  reconciling  these  numerous  passages. 
but  by  saying,  God  and  Christ  are  two  Persons, 
equal  and  eternal,  in  one  God.  Christ  says, 
*•  Where  two  or  three  are  met  in  my  name,  there  I 
am  in  the  midst  of  them."  Not  simply,  I  will  be, 
but  I  am  :  As  he  said  to  Moses  in  the  bush,  '•  I  am, 
that  I  am.  Say  unto  them,  I  am  hath  sent  me  unto 
thee."  "  Before  Abraham  was,  I  am."  Not  1 
8* 


90 

was  ;  but  I  am.  Christ  thus  identifies  himself  with 
the  eternal  Jehovah.  How  exactly  Christ's  pro- 
mises of  his  presence  with  his  people,  accord  with 
the  same  promises  of  Jehovah  in  the  prophets  : 
"  Fear  not,  for  I  am  with  thee  ;  be  not  dismayed, 
for  I  am  thy  God."  '•  I  will  not  fail  thee,  nor  for- 
sake thee."  Are  the  above  promises  of  Christ 
consistent  with  his  being  a  derived,  depeiident 
being  ?  Is  not  omnipresence  an  essential  attribute 
of  God  ?  And  Christ's  ascribing  this  to  himself, 
as  well  as  to  the  Father,  gives  us  his  own  testi- 
mony, that  he,  as  well  as  the  Father,  is  God. 

The  apostle  says,  of  Christ's  pre-existcnt  Divi- 
Rity,  "  Who  being  in  the  form  of  God,  thought  it 
not  robbery  to  be  equal  w^ith  God  ;  but  made  him- 
self of  no  reputation,  and  took  on  him  the  form  of 
a  servant,  and  was  made  in  the  likeness  of  man." 
Here  Christ,  before  he  came  in  the  tlesh.  and  be^ 
fore  we  have  any  account  of  the  Father's  dwelling 
in  him,  or  of  the  Spirit's  being  given  him  without 
measure,  was  existing  in  heaven,  a  distinct  Person 
in  the  Godhead,  and  viewed  himself  equal  with 
God.  Is  not  this  testimony  decisive  that  Christ  is 
God  ?  The  form  of  a  servant,  in  the  above  text, 
is  a  servant.  The  likeness  of  man,  is  a  man.  And 
the  form  of  God  is  God.  Christ  was  in  the  form 
of  God;  and  he  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal 
with  God.  But  if  ihe  highest  nature  of  Christ 
were  derived  and  dependent,  it  must  have  been  in- 
finite robbery  in  him  to  have  claimed  equality  with 
God! 

Some  ob'cct  to  the  above  text,  that  the  word 
translated  eiual,  in  the  original  is  not  an  adjective, 
but  an  adverb  ;  that  it  is  not  isos,  equal  ;  but  isa, 
equally.  If  there  be  any  weight  in  the  criticism, 
it  is  who'ly  in  favour  of  Christ's  Divinity.  For  then 
the  adverb   equallj/,  may    be  viewed  m    qwahfving 


91 

the  verb  importing  to  he  ;  literally  thus  ;  "Who 
being  in  the  forin  ol'God,  thought  it  not  robhery  to 
be,  Cv-jually  witiiGod,i.  e.  equally  with  the  Father, 
Christ  possesses  independent  existence.  Perfectly 
this  accords  with  the  title  which  Christ  took  to 
himself  ia  the  burning  bush,  •'  I  am  that  I  am.'^ 
And  to  the  Jews  ;  ••  Before  Abraham  was,  I  am." 
This  title,  with  the  name  Jehovah,  and  Jah,  as- 
cribed to  Christ,  imports  necessary  existence. 
Surely  then,  it  was  not  robbery  in  Christ  to  exist, 
equally  with  the  Father. 

The  Jews  understood  Christ  as  claiming  equali- 
ty with  God,  notwithstanding  all  the  notices  he 
gave,  of  the  dependence  of  his  humanity  :  "Be- 
cause thou,  being  a  man.  makest  thyself  God." — 
Again  ;  "  Making  himself  equal  with  God."  Christ 
was  so  far  from  correcting  this,  as  a  mistake,  that 
he  told  them  plainly.  "  I  and  my  Father  are  one." 
'•  T  dwell  in  the  Father  ;  and  the  Father  in  me." 
"  He  that  hath  seen  me,  hath  seen  the  Father." 
"' If  ye  had  known  me,  ye  had  known  my  Father 
also."  Would  the  meek  and  lowly  Jesus  have 
said  such  things  as  these,  and  have  put  himself  be- 
fore the  Father,  ("  I  and  my  Father  are  one,")  if 
he  had  been  as  much  inferior  to  the  Father,  as  is  a 
derived,  dependent  being,  to  the  infmite,  eternal 
Jehovah  ?  It  appears  impossible  !  Vv  hat !  the 
faithful  and  true  Witness  speaking  most  impious 
falsehoods  ? 

It  is  said  by  some,  that  Christ  and  the  Father  are 
one,  only  as  Christians  are  one  with  God  and 
Christ,  and  one  another.  As  Christ  intercedes  ; 
••  That  they  all  may  be  one  ;  as  thou  Father  art  in 
me,  and  I  in  thee,  that  they  may  be  one  in  us." 
The  oneness  here  is  only  a  mora!  oneness:  or  being 
of  one  spirit,  and  one  design.  But  is  there  nothing 
more  of  equality,  between  God  and  Christ,  than  a 


92 


moral  oneness  ?  How  then  Is  the  blood  of  Chiist 
called  the  blood  of  God  ?  Does  the  oneness  be- 
tween Christians  and  God,  render  the  blood  of  the 
martyrs  the  blood  of  God  ?  or  of  any  avail  to  atone 
for  sin  ?  ^^^hy  not.  as  well  as  the  blood  of  Christ, 
if  the  martyrs  had  ail  the  oneness  with  God,  which 
Clirist  possesses  ?  There  is  both  a  moral  and  a 
natural  oneness  between  God  and  Christ.  And  to 
the  moral  oneness,  and  not  to  the  natural,  that 
clause  in  the  intercession  of  Christ  relates.  But 
this  by  no  means  disproves  an  essential  oneness 
between  the  two  first  Persons  in  the  Godhead. 
Such  a  oneness  other  scriptures  teach  does  exist. 
And  this  clause  in  the  intercession,  hints  nothing  to. 
the  contrary.  It  relates  to  that  kind  of  oneness, 
vrhich  exists  among  Christians. 

The  following  divine  testimony  establishes  the 
equality  of  Christ's  Divinity  with  that  of  the  Fa- 
ther. "  That  all  men  should  honor  tlic  Son,  even 
as  they  honor  the  FailiCT.-'  How  is  the  Fatlier 
honored  ?  He  is  honored  as  the  independent  eter- 
nal God.  How  then  must  the  Son  be  honored,  in 
order  to  be  honored  as  the  Father  ?  Surely  as  the 
independent,  eternal  God.  Or  else  he  is  at  an  in- 
finite reniovc  from  being  honored,  as  is  the  Father. 

The  following  passages-  evince  the  proper  Divin- 
ity of  Christ.  1  John  iii.  5  ;  "  And  ye  know  that 
he  was  mar'ifest  to  take  awaj  our  sins,  and  in  him  is 
no  sin."  Who  was  manife.-«t  to  take  away  our  sins? 
God  is  the  only  antecedent  to  the  prorloun  he  in 
the  text.  Verse  i, — ''Behold,  what  manner  of 
love  the  Father  hath  bestovved  upon  us,  that  we 
should  be  called  the  sons  of  God.  Therefore  the 
world  knoweth  us  not,  because  it  knew  him  not. 
Beloved,  now  are  v/e  the  sons  of  God  ;  and  it  doth 
not  yet  appear  what  we  shall  be  :  but  we  know 
that  when  he  shall  appear,  we  shall  be  like  him  : 


93 

(God)  for  "vre  shall  see  him  as  he  is.  And  every 
man  that  liath  this  hope  in  him  puritieth  himself, 
even  as  he  (God)  is  pare. — And  ye  know  that  he 
(God)  was  manifest  to  take  away  our  sins." 

Again,  '•  And  without  controversy,  great  is  the 
mystery  of  godliness,  God  was  manifest  in  the 
flesh." — There  is  and  must  be  an  overwhelming 
mystery,  to  short-sighted  creatures,  in  the  union 
of  Christ's  two  natures,  that  he  is  fmmanuel,  God 
w^ith  us :  "  ^Vhich  things  the  Angels  desire  to  look 
into." — Those,  who  would  attempt  to  divest  this 
subject  of  mystery,  do  violence  both  to  the  spirit 
and  the  letter  of  the  testimony  of  God  himself  up- 
on this  subject.  For  God  informed  that  Christ's 
name  should  "  be  called  Wonderful,  Counsellor, 
the  mighty  God,  the  everlasting  Father,  and  the 
Prince  of  Peace."  And  he  asserts,  that  "Without 
controversy,  great  is  the  mystery  of  godhness,  God 
was  manifest  in  the  flesh."  Here,  the  Logos,  in 
the  first  of  the  Gospel  of  John,  who  "was  made 
flesh,  and  dwelt  among  us,"  is,  as  he  was  by  John, 
called,  God.  Here  he  was  manifested  in  human 
nature.  And  here  we  are  divinely  taught,  that 
without  controversy  it  is  a  great  mystery.* 

*  Some  inform  us,  that  this  text  is,  in  our  reading",  incorrect. 
It  is  said  that,  in  some  ancient  Greek  MSS.  it  read?.  "  Great  is 
the  mystery  of  godlines.^,  who  was  manifest  in  the  flesh."  Ai>d 
in  one  MS. — "which  was  manifest  in  the  flesh."  1  will  now 
assign  my  reasons,  why  I  am  well  satisfied  with  the  present  rea- 
ding in  our  Bible. 

1.  VVe  have  much  authority  in  favor  of  it.  Many  Greek 
MSS.  it  is  confessed,  have  the  passage,  as  we  have  it.  And  it 
is  said,  that ''only  two  undisputed  testimonies,  among:  all  the 
Greek  MSS.  exi-t  in  favor''  of  the  reading,  '' wlio  wae 
manifest  in  the  flesh."  (See  Panoplist  for  April,  ll^.ll,  page 
310 — )  The  noted  Alexandrian  MS.  in  the  British  Museum, 
"  has  been  the  subject  of  much  doubt  and  dispute,  owing  to  the 
controverted  word  having  been  in  some  of  tl^e  lines  (es- 
sential   to   determine    its  character)   touched   by    a    modem 


94 

David   says,  "  Taste  and  see  that  the  Lord  is 

gracious."  The  apostle,  alluding  to  (he  same  pas- 
sage, says,  *'  If  so  be  ye  have  tasted  that  the  Lord 
k  graciouS; — to  whom  coming,  as  to  a  living  stone, 

land."  (Ibjd.)  Mill,  Walton  and  Barriniaii  declare  in  favor 
of +  'i)s  MS.'?  coutHiniuo;our  piesent  reading. 

Good  aidhoritie?  are  found  among  the  lathers  in  favor  of  our 
present  reading,  The  Apostolic  Constitutions,  in  the  second 
century,  have  the  text  as  it  is  m  our  Bible.  Lactantius,  iu  the 
fourth  century  likewise  :  and  Gregory  Nysseu,  and  Chrysos- 
tom,  of  the  fourth  century,  have  it  thus,  very  clearly.  And 
TheJoret  of  the  fiOh  century. 

2.  !  can,  to  my  satisfaction,  account  for  the  alteration  of  seme 
of  the  ancient  MSS.  from  '•  God  was  manifest  in  the  fiesh,"'  to 
"  who  was  manifest  in  the  flesh."  For  this  alteration,  in  Greek 
MS.  vv'as  very  small,  and  might  be  the  eficcl  of  innocent  mis- 
take; while  the  alteration  from  who.  to  God,  must  have  been 
more  likely  to  be  the  effect  of  v/icked  design.  This  I  will  now 
si  low.  In  the  ancient  Greek  manuscript-writing,  the  w<  rd  for 
God  was  written  thus,  OC.  (Ths,  for  Theo?.)  And  the  word 
for  whn,  thus,  OC,  (Os.)  The  Greek  letter  Sigma  being  writ- 
ten like  the  Eaarlish  C.  The  only  difference  here  between 
the  word  for  Gud,  and  the  word  for  ic/to.  is  a  dash  in  the  middle 
of  the  Oinicron,  or  O,  to  convert  it  into  the  letter  Theta,  hav- 
ing the  sound  of  Tk.  How  easily  then  miglit  this  small  dash, 
in  the  centre  of  the  O,  have  been  by  some  transcriber  omitted 
through  mistake  ?  and  the  mistake  overlooked  ?  Yea,  how 
easy  to  conceive,  that  this  dash,  in  the  6C,  in  the  text  under 
consid'^ration,  might,  in  some  original, from  which  a  transcriber 
was  copying,  be  effaced,  by  age  or  use  ;  so  that,  in  glancing  his 
eye  upon  it,  he  might  mistake  OC  for  C.C  ?  But  to  suppose  so 
important  a  dasli  inserted  in  the  copy,  when  it  was  not  in  the 
original,  and  thus  to  convert  it  from  ichu,,  to  Gorf,  must  appear 
much  more  like  the  effect  of  design,  and  much  more  improba- 
ble. 

3.  The  reading  "  who  v/as  manifest  in  the  flesli,"  is  ungram- 
raatical ;  and  it  utterly  obscures  the  sense.  With  what  antece- 
dent can  the  who  agree  .'*  Not  with  godliness  ;  for  that,  in  the 
original,  is  in  the  feminine  gender;  and  who  is  masculine.  And 
it  cannot  agree  with  mystery.  For  that  in  the  original  is  of 
neuter  gender.  It  tliorefore  lias  no  antecedent.  Neillicr  docs 
it  make  sense.  It  informs  not,  who  was  manifest  in  the  flesh. 
It  is  like  the  following  broken  sentence  ;  What  an  astonishing 
visit !  Who  come  here  to-day,  was  a  singular  charr.cter.  Thus 
obscure  is  the  tey/  rendered,  bv  reading  who.  instead  of  God. 


95 

disallowed  indccJ  of  men.  but  chosen  of  God.  ar.d 
precious."  Here  Christ  is  chosen  of  God.  and 
piecious.  In  some  sense  then,  he  is  a  dilTerent 
Person  fiom  God  the  Father.  Yet  he  is  the  Lord 
(Jehovah)  in  tliose  words  of  David,  who  is  the 
very  God.  Hence  they  are  two  Persons,  and  yo^t 
one  God. 

In  Isai.  liv.  5,  we  read,  "  For  thy  Maker  is  thy 
husband  ;  the  Lord  of  hosts  is  his  name,  and  thy 
Redeemer,  the  holy  One  of  Israel  :  The  God  of 
the  whole  earth  shall  he  be  called."  But  is  not 
Jesus  Christ  the  Redeemer,  and  the  husband  of 
the  Church  ? — The  afiirmative  is  undciiiable.  And 
it  follows,  that  Christ  is  the  Person,  who  thei:e 
speaks,  and  who  is  the  Maker  of  the  Church,  the 
Jehovah  of  hosts,  the  holy  One  of  Israel,  the  God 
of  the  whole  earth.  In  the  Song  of  Solomon, 
Christ  is  the  Bridegroom  of  his  Spouse.  And  in 
the  New  Testament  the  Church  is  the  bride,  the 
Lamb's  wife.  Says  Paul,  "  I  have  espoused  you 
to  one  Husband,  that  I  may  present  you  as  a  chaste 
virgin  to  Christ."  ''  For  the  husband  is  the  head 
of  the  wife,  even  as  Christ  is  the  head  of  the 
Church  ;  and  he  is  the  Saviour  of  the  body." 
Here  is  the  very  R.edeemer,  the  holy  One  of  Is- 
rael, in  that  passage  in  Isaiah.  Most  evidently  the 
Bein;j  in  all  these  passaf:i;es  is  one  and  the  same. 
Christ  then,  is  the  true  and  living  God.  though  in 
some  sense  a  distinct  Person  from  the  Father. 

4.  The  text,  in  o'lr  pre-ent  reading',  perfectly  accords  with 
the  language  ol  the  Bible.  It  has  hc-en  made  to  appear,  that 
Christ,  in  tlie  lan:^na»e  of  the  B'ble,  is  God,  the  triae  God,  the 
grnat  God,  the  mi^'ity  God.  An!  Christ  was  manifested  in  the 
fle-h.  The  sentiment  then  is  tri'e,  "Rhether  the  text  speak  it, 
or  not.  And  the  oj'ponent  has  dorie  but  li'tle  towards  carrying 
h!5  point,  even  could  he  prove,  that  the  text  ought  to  be  read, 
"  v.hu  was  nnaniiest  in  the  flesh  ;"  and  thus  that  it  has  no  mean- 
m^  ;  which  yet  cannot  be  proved. 


96 


Again ;  in  Isaiah  xlv.  23,  Jehovah  swears  hj 
himself,  that  to  him  "  every  knee  shall  bow,  as. d 
every  tongtie  shall  swear."  When  God  sw  ear*  by 
himself,  it  is  "  because  he  can  swear  b}  none  great- 
er." Heb.  vi.  13.  But  from  this  passage  in  Isaiah, 
Paul  informs  the  Romans,  that  "we  shall  all  stand 
before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ.  For  it  is 
written,  As  I  hve,  saith  the  Lord,  every  knee  shall 
bow  to  me,  and  every  tongue  shall  confess  to  God. 
So  then,  every  one  of  us  shall  give  account  of  him- 
self to  God." — In  these  two  passages,  we  are 
taught,  that  Christ  is  God,  tfie  Judge,  a; id  the  Je- 
hovah, w^ho  sware  by  himself;  and  theiefore  knew 
none  greater  than  himself,  by  whom  to  swear. 

It  is  the  essential  prerogative  of  God,  to  search 
the  heart.  Of  the  wicked  deceitful  heart  of  man, 
God  says,  "  Who  can  know  it?  I,  Jehovah,  search 
the  heart,  I  try  the  reins,  even  to  give  every  nian 
according  to  his  ways."  Much  of  such  language  as 
this  do  we  read,  of  the  eternal  Jehovah.  ''  The 
Lord's  throne  is  inheaven  :  his  eyes  behold,  his 
eyelids  try  the  children  of  men."  ''  The  eyes  of 
the  Lord  are  in  every  place,  beholding  the  evil  and 
the  good." — '^His  eyes  behold  the  nations."  "God 
looketh  on  the  heart."  "The  righteous  God  trieth 
the  hearts  and  the  reins."  "  For  thou,  even  thou 
only  knowest  the  hearts  of  all  thechildren  of  men." 
Now  if  we  can  find  this  very  prerogative  ascribed 
to  Christ,  we  shall  then  find  ourselves  wanauted 
to  say,  that  Christ  is  indeed  God,  who  only  k!u>ws 
the  heart  of  man.  But  we  do  find  this  \ery  thing. 
"  Jesus  did  not  commit  himself  unto  them,  (the 
Jews,)  because  he  knew  all  men  ;  and  needed  not 
that  any  should  testify  of  man  ;  for  he  knew  what 
■was  in  man."  "And  Jesus  knowing  their  thoughts, 
(Greek,  Jesus  seeing  their  thouglits.)  said,  Where- 
fore think  ye  evil  in  your  hearts."     "  For  Jesus 


97 

knew  iVorn  the  beginning,  wlio  they  were  that  hc-- 
lieved  not ;  and  who'  should  betray  him."  Should 
any,  to  evade  this  evidence,  say,  Jesus  knew  these 
things  by  information  from  God  ;  1  answer  ;  let 
Christ  himself  decide  it  :  The  "  Son  of  God," 
Rev.  ii.  18,23,  says,  ''  And  all  the  churches  shall 
know,  that  I  am  he,  who  scarcheth  the  reins  and 
hearts,  and  I  will  give  unto  every  one  of  you  ac- 
cording to  your  works."  Christ  does  not  say  here, 
that  I  am  given  and  enabled  to  know  the  hearts  ; 
but  "  1  am  He,  who  searcheth  the  reins  and  the 
hearts."  I  am  that  very  God  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, who  said,  "  I,  Jehovah,  search  the  heart,  and 
try  the  reins,  even  to  give  every  man  according  to 
his  ways."  Christ  accordingly  adds,  "  And  I  will 
give  unto  every  one  of  you  according  to  your 
works."  As  if  he  had  said,  I  am  the  very  Jehovah, 
who  by  Jeremiah  spake  these  words  ;  and  all  my 
churches  shall  know  it.'  What  opinion  then  must 
we  form  of  those,  who  are  laboring  to  disprove,  in 
the  churches,  this  divine  sentiment;  and  are  la- 
boring to  propagate  the  opinion  that  Christ  is  de- 
rived, and  totally  distinct  from  that  Jehovah,  who 
searches  the  hearts  ■  Peter  did  not  view  his  Sa- 
viour thus,  when  he  devoutly  appealed  to  Christ's, 
omniscience  ;  "  Lord,  thou  knowest  all  things  ; 
thou  knowest  that  1  love  thee."  And  Thomas  ; 
when  he  said,  "  My  Lord,  and  my  God." 

Could  Jesus  Christ  have  made  the  above  appli- 
cation of  an  essential  divine  prerogative  to  himself, 
if  he  were  only  of  derived  Divinity,  or  were  a  con- 
stituted God  ;  acting  only  by  a  delegated  author- 
ity ?  Would  not  a  magistrate,  who  thus  treated  his 
government,  be  guilty  of  high  treason  ?  And  would 
not  the  crime  be  of  a  deeper  die,  in  proportion  to 
the  grade  of  his  magistracy  ?  Should  the  lowest 
magistrate  seriously  assume  to  hinaself  the  titlev 
9 


98 

and  all  the  honors  due  to  his  king,  or  emperor,  it 
would  be  a  serious  otiencc'  But  it  would  be  a 
much  more  serious  otFcnce,  should  a  prime  minis- 
ter do  ii. 

The  uifinite  Jehovah.  God  of  Israel,  says,  Isai. 
xliii.  ''  Tims  sailh  the  Lord,  that  created  thee,  O 
Jacob,  and  he  that  formed  thee.O  Israel',  Fear  not, 
for  I  have  redeemed  thee,  I  have  called  tiiee  by 
thy  name  ;  thou  art  mine. — I  am  the  Lord  thy 
God,  tlie  holy  One  of  Israel,  thy  Saviour — Eveiy 
one  that  is  called  by  my  name  ; — I  have  created 
him  for  my  glory,  1  have  formed  him.  yea  I  have 
made  him. — Before  me  th(?re  was  no  God  formed  : 
neither  shall  there  be  after  me.  I,  even  I  am  the 
Lord  ;  and  beside  me  there  is  no  Saviour.-— Thus 
saith  the  Lord  your  Redeemer,  the  holy  One  oi  Is- 
rael ; — 1  am  the  Lord  your  holy  One,  the  Creator 
of  Israel,  yoirr  King.*' 

Here  the  one  God  is  the  Crestor  of  Israel. 
But  did  not  Christ  create  Israel  ?  John  i.  1 0  ;  ''He 
was  in  the  world,  and  the  world  was  made  by  him  ; 
he  came  to  his  own,  (came  to  the  Jews,  whom  he 
had  created,  and  taken  into  covenant  with  hiniseif.) 
and  his  own  received  him  not."  "  AH  things  were 
made  by  him,  (Christ)  whether  they  be  thrones  or 
dominions,  principalities  or  powers."  Surely  then 
Christ  was  that  God  of  Israel,  that  holy  Ojie. 

That  holy  One  of  Israel  declares,  that  no  God 
was  formed  before  him  ;  and  none  should  be  form- 
ed after  him.  Can  Christ  then  be  a  distinct  God 
from  hii:j.  and  formed  or  derived  aftci  him  ?  Sure- 
ly not.  This  holy  One  of  isiael  was  their  Saviour; 
beside  whom  there  is  no  Saviour.  But  is  not  Christ 
the  Saviour  of  Israel  ?  The  apostle  says  of  Christ, 
"  Neither  is  there  salvation  in  any  other."  Inevit- 
ably then  Christ  is  that  holy  One,  that  just  God 
-^and   Saviour  of  Israel,  beside   whom  there  is  no 


99 

other  Gocl.  no  other  Saviour.  There  is  no  evasion, 
of  this  conclusion,  without  denying  the  decisions 
of  God  himself.  Jude  says,  ''  Now  unto  him,  that 
is  able  to  keep  you  from  falling  and  to  present  yc;i 
fa^ultless  before  the  presence  of  his  glory  with  ex- 
ceeding joy,  t-y  ihe  only  wise  God  our  Saviour,  be 
glory  and  majesty,  dominion  and  power,  both  now 
and  ever.  Amen."  And  1  Tim.  ii.  3  ;  "in  the  sight 
of  God  our  Saviour."  In  these  texts  Christ  is  most 
clearly  identified  with  the  infinite  Jehovah  :  Not 
merely  morally  one,  as  are  all  the  saints  :  But  es- 
sentially the  same  Being  ;  the  same  infinite  God. 

This  Jehovah.  IsraePs  Redeemer  and  holy  One, 
?!ay3  iu  the  above  passage  in  Isaiah.  '•  I  am  the 
Creator  of  Israel,  your  King."  But  is  not  Christ 
the  King  of  Israel  ?  Natbanael  said  to  him,  John 
i.  49  ;  ''  Thou  art  the  King  of  Israel."  The  Jews 
expected  their  ?dessiah  to  come  in  this  character. 
Pilate  hence  inserted  it  on  his  superscription — 
'*  The  King  of  the  Jews."  The  Jewish  rulers 
wished  to  have  the  following  substitute,  -'He  saith, 
I  am  the  King  of  the  Jews."  Christ  then  is  that 
King  of  Israel,  that  Jehovah,  that  holy  One,  in 
Isaiah.  That  same  Jehovah,  God  of  Israel,  says, 
'•  Look  unto  me,  and  be  ye  saved,  all  the  ends  of 
the  earth  ;  for  I  am  God,  and  there  is  none  else." 
But  Christ  says,  "  I  will  draw  all  men  unto  me." 
Here  he  applies  to  himself  the  very  idea  of  the 
above  text.  David,  after  describing  Christ's  humi- 
liation, says,  '•  All  the  ends  of  the  earth  shall  re- 
member and  turn  unto  the  Lord."  But  this,  Christ 
applies  to  himself,  by  inviting  all  men  to  come  to 
him  :  and  predicting,  that  all  men  on  earth  (in  the 
Miliennium)  shall  come  to  him. 

If  Christ  be  not  the  true  and  living  God,  the 
Jevy-s  were  Justified  by  the  divine  law  given  them, 
in  putting  him  to  death,  as  a  deceiver  and  a  bias- 


ice 

phemer.  For  the  law  of  God  given  to  them  ex- 
pressly provided,  that  any  person,  who  should  at- 
tempt to  draw  them  off  to  the  worship  of  any  God, 
beside  the  tj-ue  Jehovah,  God  of  Israel,  should  be 
surely  put  to  death.  Even  should  he  -  give  a  sign 
«r  a  wonder,  and  the  sign  or  wonder  come  to 
pass  ;"  yet  if  the  object  were,  to  lead  them  to 
worship  any,  beside  the  true  God,  they  should 
surely  put  him  to  death  ;  their  "  eye  should  not 
pity,  nor  spare,  nor  conceal  him."  If  Jesus  Christ 
then,  were  not  the  true  and  living  God  of  Israel, 
the  Jews  were  obliged,  by  their  own  law,  to  put 
him  to  death.  For,  notwithstanding  the  notices 
he  gave  them  of  the  dependence  of  his  humanity 
(On  God,  Christ  did  present  himself  to  the  Jews,  as 
God.  They  understood  him  thus.  "  Thou  being 
a  man,  makest  thyself  God."  He  did  receive,  and 
never  forbid,  worship  paid  to  himself;  and  he 
taught  "  that  all  men  should  honor  (or  worship) 
the  Son,  even  as  they  honor  the  Father."  Now 
therefore,  if  Christ  were  not  the  true  God  of  Is- 
rael, did  he  not  teach  them  to  v/orship  another 
beside  the  true  God  of  Israel  ?  And  if  he  did, 
how  could  the  Jews  be  exempt  from  the  demand 
of  their  law,  that  such  an  one  should  be  put  to 
death  ?  To  say,  that  Christ  acted  under  the  di- 
vine commission,  and  exhibited  plenary  evidence 
of  his  being  sent  of  God,  though  he  were  a  dis- 
tinct being  from  the  God  of  Israel  ?  and  that  God 
permitted  him  to  receive  divine  honors,  gives  no 
relief  in  this  case.  For  it  is  to  say,  that  God  act- 
ed contrary  to  his  own  law  ;  that  he  thus  denied 
himself;  and  betrayed  his  people.  For  the  One 
God  of  the  Jews  did  positively  and  abundantly  as- 
sure them,  that  there  was  no  God  beside  himself ; 
that  he  knew  not  any  ;  none  formed  before  him, 
cor  after  him  ;    that  he  was   their  Saviour  ;    and^ 


101 

there  was  no  Saviour  beside  him.  Surely  then,  it* 
Christ  presented  liimself  to  tlie  Jews,  as  their 
Saviour,  and  an  object  of  worship  ;  and  yet  as  a 
being  distinct  from  the  infinite  Jehovah,  the  God 
of  Israel  ;  I  see  nothing  why  he  ought  not,  accor- 
ding to  the  law  of  God,  to  have  been  executed  as 
a  deceiver  ! 

To  represent  Christ  as  a  being  distinct  from  the 
Father  ;  and  to  allow,  that  he  is  at  the  same  time 
called  God  ;  is  to  own  two  Gods.  There  is  no 
possibility  of  evading  this  charge,  till  it  can  be 
made  to  appear,  that  one  real  God,  and  one  con- 
stituted God,  do  not  amount  to  the  number  two. 
To  say  they  are  one  in  spirit,  gives  no  relief;  for 
so  are  all  the  saints.  To  say  the  two  distinct  Be- 
ings are  one  in  original  essence,  helps  not  the  case. 
For  upon  the  scheme  of  the  opponent,  they  are 
now  no  more  one  in  essence,  than  is  a  human  fa- 
ther and  his  son.  But  these  arc  as  really  two,  as 
are  two  angels  in  heaven.  There  is  no  evasion  of 
the  charge  of  having  tv/o  Gods,  but  by  allowing 
that  the  Father,  and  the  Divinity  of  the  Son,  are 
equal  in  one  Godhead,  and  that  in  some  mysteri- 
ous and  essential  sense,  they  are  absolutely  one 
God.  And  we  find  it  a  fact,  that  they  are  abund- 
antly so  represented.  And  I  see  not  why  it  should 
be  less  offensive  to  beheve  in  two  di^nct  Gods  in 
heaven,  than  to  believe  in  one  God^^mysteriously 
consisting  of  Father,  Word  and  Holy  Ghost.* 

*  Let  not  the  advocates  for  the  sentiment,  that  Christ  is  lit- 
erally derived  from  God,  is  a  Being  distinct  from  the  Father, 
and  does  receive  worship,  ever  more  please  themselves  that 
they  are  Unitarians,  and  worshippers  of  one  God.  We  are 
worshippers  of  one  God.  But  they  are  worshippers  of  two 
Gods.  It  is  impossible  for  them  to  evade  the  charge.  We 
hold  to  a  Trinity  of  Persons  in  one  God  :  they  to  a  duality  of 
distinct  Gods.  What  have  they  gained,  in  point  cf  consisten- 
cy, in  renouncing  our  theory  ?  Have  they  not  incurred  fai- 
9* 


102 

i  The  law  of  God  demands,  that  we  should  *'  love 
the  Lord  our  God,"  with  all  the  heart,  soul,  strength 
and  mind.     But  is  not  the  same  love  demanded 
towards  Jesus  Christ  ?     Was  man  ever  cautioned 
against  loving  Christ  more  than  God  ;  or  too  in- 
tensely ?     We  are  much  cautioned  against  loving 
the  creature  more  than  the  Creator.     But  we  are 
so  far  from  being  cautioned  against  loving  Christ 
more  than  God,  that  we  are  clearly  taught,  that  to 
love  Christ,  is  to  love  God.     Not  merely  that  Iovq 
to  Christ  is  an  evidence  of  love  to  God  ;  for  love 
to  Christians  is  thus  ;  but  love  to  Christ,  is  itself 
love  to  God.     As  he  that  hath  seen  Christ  hath 
seen   the  Father ;  so  he  that  hath    loved  Chr'it 
hath  loved  the  Father.     Accordingly  man's  want 
of  love  to  God  is  expressed,  and  threatened  as 
follows;   "If any  man  love  not  our  Lord   Jesus 
Christ,  let  him  be  anathema,  maranathh."     Does 
the  divine  economy  render  idolatry  essential  to  an 
escape  from  the  w;rath  to  come  ?     Must  a  derived 
being.,  totally  distinct  from  the  infinite    Jehovah^ 
the  God  of  Israel,  be  supremely  loved  ;  or  man  be 
lost  ? 

Isaiah  says  of  the  wricked,  in  the  last  days,  "  They 
shall  go  into  the  holes  of  the  rocks,  and  into  the 
caves  of  the  earth,  for  fear  of  the  Lord,  and  for  the 
giory  of  his  Majesty,  when  he  ariseth  to  shake  ter- 
ribly the  eai#."  But  in  the  New  I'estament  we 
learn  that  it  It  Christ,  who  at  that  very  time  arises 
to  shake  terribly  the  earth,  and  to  dash  wicked  na- 
tions to  pieces  as  with  a  rod  of  iron.*     It  is  Christ;, 

greater  ilifficnlties,  than  they  have  escaped?  By  what  name 
oMo^ht  they  to  be  callod  ?  Surely,  ngt  Unitarians.  There  is  no 
more  real  unity  in  their  two  Gods  than  between  *'  A^^atn  aatt 
Seth." 

^   Psalm  it,  e. 


103 

who  at  the  same  period  siys,  '*  Behold  I  come  as  a 
thief."*  Christ  is  the  Wo'rd  of  God,  riding  forth, 
at  that  day,  upon  his  white  horse  of  victory,  Rev. 
xix.  1 1 — .  In  those  passa^^es,  whiie  Christ  is  the 
Word  of  God.  and  the  Son  ;  he  is  at  the  same  time 
the  Jehovah,  wiio  "  alone  shaii  be  exalted  in  tliat 
day." 

Surely  it  is  the  Kingdom  of  Christ,  which  is  to  be 
exalted  in  the   Millenniam.     No  believer  in  the 
Gospel  will  doubt  of  this.     It  is  called  "the  Son 
of  man  coming  in  his  kingdom."     Yet  '•  Jeliovah 
alone  shall  be  exalted  in  that  day."     And  it  is  ''the 
God  of  heaven,  who  will  then  set  up  a  kingdom, 
which  shall   never  be   destroyed."     Dan.   ii.  44. 
Christ  then,  is  Jehovah  alone,  the  God  of  heaven. 
Although  relative  to  Christ's  humanity,  he  is  made 
head  overall  things  to  the  church  •,. and  God  the 
Father  hath  highly  exalted  him,  and  given  him  a 
name,  that  is  above  every  name  ;  yet  relative  to 
his  Divinity  he  is,  according  to  the  clear  sense  of 
the  above  passages,    viewed  in  their  connexion, 
Jehovah  alone,  the  God  of  heaven,  exalted  in  that 
day.     Accordingly  the  prophet  says,  of  that  \erv 
period,  Isai.  xl.  9 — 1 1,  ''-  Say  unto  the  cities  of  Ju- 
dah.   Behold  your  God.     Behold  the   Lord  God 
will   come  with  strong  hand,   and  his   arm  shall 
rule  for  him  ;  behold  his  reward  is  with  him.   and 
his  work  before  him.     He  shall  feed  his  flock  like 
a  Shepherd,  he  shall  gather  the  lambs  with  his  arm, 
and   carry  them  in  his  bosom,   and  shall    gently 
lead  those  that  are  with  young." — This  is  Christ 
coming  in  his  kingdom.     Yet  he  is  '•  the  Lord 
God."     The  saints  triumph  ;  *'  Lo  this  is  our  God ; 
we  have  waited  fof  him,  he  will  save  us."     Jeho- 
vah is  our  Judge,  Jehovah  in  our  Lawgiver,  Jeho- 

/♦  Rev.  xvi.  yy. 


10>^ 

vah  is  our  King,  he  Mill  save  us.  Are  all  these 
things  said  of  a  derived,  dependent  being,  who  is 
distinct  from  the  Father  ?  Is  it  such  a  being  alone, 
who  is  "  exalted  in  that  day  ?"  These  Scriptures 
teach,  that  Christ  in  his  Divinity,  is  one  with  God  ; 
and  is  the  great,  the  living  and  true  God. 

Jesus  Christ  relative  to  his  human  body,  said, 
^'  Destroy  this  temple ;  and  in  three  days  I  will 
raise  it  up."  '*  But  God  raised  him  from  the 
dead."  Christ  here  decides,  that  he  is  God. 
And  he  decides  that  he  has  two  natures  in  his  one 
Person,  divine  and  human  ;  And  sometimes  be- 
speaks of  himself  in  relation  to  the  one,  and  some- 
times in  relation  to  the  other.  When  he  spake, 
in  the  days  of  his  humiliation,  of  his  dependence  on 
God,  he  spake  in  relation  to  his  mediatorial  char- 
acter, as  will  be  shown.  But  when  he  spake  in  re- 
lation to  his  divine  nature,  he  spake  as  God.  I 
will  raise  Up  this  temple  of  my  body  in  three  days. 
•'  I  will ;  be  thou  clean."  To  the  dead,  "  1  say  un- 
to thee  arise."  '•  Lazarus,  come  forth."  To  the 
stormy  lake,  "  Peace,  be  still !"  To  the  Disci- 
ples, •'!  will  make  you  tishers  of  men."  "  The 
Son  "of  man  hath  power  on  earth  to  forgive  sins." 
'•  Whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  in  my  name,  1  will  do 
it."  '-'  I  will  not  leave  you  comfortless  ;  1  will 
come  unto  you."  In  relation  to  his  humanity,  and 
mediatorial  character,  Jesus  wrought  miracles  in 
his  Father's  name.  In  relation  to  his  Divinity,  he 
wrought  miracles  in  his  own  name,  and  received 
the  praise  of  it.  Should  any  doubt  relative  to  the 
correctness  of  this  distinction,  between  Christ's 
two  natures,  let  Christ  himself  decide  it.  "  I  am 
the  Root  and  olfspring  of  David."*  Here,  in  a 
short  clause,  he  speaks  in  relation  to  both  his  na; 

^-  Rev.  xxii.  16, 


105' 

tures.  He  is  David's  Root,  and  Davd's  offspring"-, 
David's  Jehovah,  and  David's  Son  ;  David's  God, 
and  David's  descendant :  David's  Creator,  and 
*' his  seed  according  to  tlie  flesh."  Can  any  be- 
liever in  Revelation  doubt  whether  Christ  does 
possess  two  natures  /  and  whether  this  fact  togeth- 
er with  his  constituted  mediatorial  character,  may 
solve  all  the  seeming  contradictions  o  Christ's  de- 
pendence on  God  ;  and  yet  his  being  himself  the 
very  independent  God  ?  if  they  will  doubt,  thej 
are  not  the  first,  who  have  doubted.  The  cavil- 
ling Pharisees  doubted;  and  our  Lord  put  them 
to  silence  with  the  very  truth  in  the  above  text. 
While  the  Pharisees  were  gathered  together,  Je- 
gus  asked  them,  saying,  What  think  ye  of  Christ  ? 
Whose  Son  is  he  /  They  say  unto  him,  The  Son 
of  Da\id.  He  saith  unto  them.  How  then  doth 
David  in  spii'it  call  him  Lord,  saying  ;  The  Lord 
said  unto  my  Lord,  Sit  thou  on  my  right  hand,  till 
I  make  thine  enemies  thy  footstool?  If  David  then 
call  him  Lord,  how  is  he  his  Son  ?"  This  reduced 
Jhem  to  silence,  Christ  was  both  David's  Lord, 
and  Son.  In  his  Deity,  he  was  the  former  5  in  his 
humanity  the  latter.  And  had  the  Pharisees  under- 
stood (and  had  grace  enough  to  acknowledge)  this 
evident  sense  of  the  scriptures  concerning  Christ, 
they  could  have  answered  his  question,  with  great 
ease,  by  saying  ;  Christ's  Divinity  is  David's  Je- 
hovah, whom  he  set  always  before  his  face,  and 
worshipped  as  God.  But  Christ's  humanity  is 
made  of  the  seed  of  David,  according  to  the  llesh  : 
Or.  Christ  is  David's  Root,  and  offspring. 

The  two  natures  in  Christ  are  often  clearly  dis- 
tinguished from  each  other,  and  things  said  of  him, 
which  apply  to  but;  one  of  these  natures.  As  1 
Cor.  XV.  -21  ;  ''•  But  when  he  saith.  All  things  are 
put  under  him.  ii  is  manifest  that  he  is  excepted, 
who  did  put  all  things  under  him.''"  Here  refeieoce 


1C6 

is  had  to  Christ's  glorified  humanity  ;  that  it  is  the 
intinite  God,  who  glorified  the  man  Christ,  and 
put  ail  things  under  his  power.  Compare  this  with 
Phil.  iii..  21  ;- — •'  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ — who  is 
ahie  even  to  suhdue  all  things  to  himself."  The 
word  in  the  original,  in  the  former  of  these  texts, 
(importin:::  the  putlirig  tji  ail  things  under  Christ) 
is  the  same  v/ith  that  in  the  latter  text  translated 
to  subdue,  Christ,  in  the  latter  text  is  said  to  be 
ab!e  to  do  the  \ery  thing,  which  God,  in  the  former 
text,  is  said  to  do.  The  former  text  then,  alludes 
to  Christ's  humanity  ;  the  latter  to  his  Divinity. 

I  might  multiply  cvidtnces  of  Christ's  propei* 
Deity,  till  almost  the  whole  scripture  would  pass 
in  review  :  But  it  is  needk'5::.  A  tc^w  more  sacred 
testimo.;ic?  nowever,  I  must  beg  the  reader's  pa- 
tience to  peruse,  before  I  close  this  section.  The 
great  truth  before  us  does  not  rest  on  a  few  obscure 
hints,  or  detached  passages;  but  it  is  interwoven 
through  the  Bible;  and  forms  the  essential  basis 
of  its  glorious  scheme. 

Many  scriptures,  which  I  esteem  divine  testi- 
monies to  this  point.  I  omit,  because  the  decision 
is  not  carried  so  clearly  upon  their  fnce.  I  do  not 
mean  to  make  a  quotation,  which  I  do  not  believe 
is  decisive  in  favor  of  the  real  Deity  of  Christ. 

Paul  tells  the  Corinthians,  that  he  was  determin- 
ed to  know  nothing  among  them, save  Jesus  Christ, 
and  him  crucified.  But  was  not  the  glory  of  God 
his  object  ?  Jesus  Christ  then,  in  Paul's  view,  was 
God.  To  preach  Christ,  was  to  preach  God.  To 
know  Christ,  was  to  know  God.  Christ  was  Paul's 
oidy  oh  ect.  Yet  God  was  his  only  object.  This 
accords  with  the  words  of  Christ,  "  He  that  hath 
seen  me,  hath  seen  the  Father." 

Paul  again  speaking  of  Christ,  who  will  appear 
in  judgment,  the  King  of  kings,  adds,    ''  AVho  only 


107 

hath  immortality  ;  dwelling  in  the  hght,  \vhk:h  no 
man  can  approacli  unto  ;  whom  no  man  hath  seen, 
nor  can  see  ;  to  whom  be  honor  and  power  ever- 
lasting. Amen."*  If  Christ  orijv  hath  immortality  ; 
then  surely  he  is  God.  the  only  living  God  ;  or  else 
there  is  no  God  of  immortality.  The  Father  is 
not,  in  this  test,  excluded,  but  included.  But  the 
passage  shows  the  unity  of  God  and  Christ.  Each 
of  them  only  hath  immortality. 

Paul  says  ;  •'  I  am  dead  unto  the  law.  that  I 
might  live  unto  God."  Yet  he  teils  us,  •••  For  me 
to  live  is  Christ ;" — "  that  we  shouicllive  to  him, 
who  died  for  us,  and  rose  again."  ••  Ye  ere  boaght 
•with  a  price  :  therefore  giorify  God  with  your 
bodvaad  spirit,  waich  are  God's."  Thus  with  Paul, 
Christ  was  God.  God  and  Chnst,  in  point  of  real 
Divinity,  were  with  Paul  convertable  terms. 

Man  is  commanded  to  rejoice  and  glory  only  in 
God.  '•  In  the  Lord  shall  all  the  seed  of  Israel  be 
justified,  and  shall  glory."  "  As  it  is  written  :  He 
that  sjlorieth.  let  him  glory  in  the  Lord."  ••  And 
rejoice  in  hope  of  the  i;:ory  of  God."  '•  ^»Ve  also 
joy  in  God."  Bat  yet  Paul  says,  '*  God  forbid  that 
I  should  glory,  save  in  the  cross  of  oar  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,"  "  Your  rejoicing  being  more  abundant 
in  Christ" — "in  whom  though  now  ye  see  him  not, 
yet  believing,  ye  re;oice  with  joy  unspeakable  and 
full  of  glory."  There  is  no  avoiding  the  conclu- 
sion, that  in  those  passages,  God  is  Christ ;  and 
Christ  is  God. 

If  Christ  be  not  the  living  God,  but  a  derived, 
dependent  being,  in  his  highest  nature,  why  did 
the  apostles  work  their  mirac'es  in  his  name,  and 
not  in  the  name  of  God  ? — Should  they  not  have 
performed  them  in  the  name  of  that  divme  Powerj 

*  1  Tim.  vi   IB. 


108 

who*  actually  did  the  work  ?  Would  they  be  divine- 
ly directed  to  perform  their  miracles  m  the  name 
of  a  derived,  dependent  being?  and  to  have  ilie 
praise  ascribed  to  ;:uch  an  one  /  This  would  be  most 
unaccountable.  All  power  helongeth  unto  God  ; 
yea  unto  tiie  Lord  our  God  belongeth  the  issues 
from  aeath.  The  praise  of  God's  works  ouglit  to 
be  given  to  him,  and  not  to  the  instruments  oi  his 
oceiations.  It  is  one  threat  obect  of  Revelation, 
to  leach  creatures  devoutly  to  distinguish  between 
instruments  of  good,  and  God  the  intinite  giver. 
And  would  Christ  have  directed  his  apostles  to  vio- 
late this  principle  /  Yea,  would  he  have  violated 
it  in  his  own  Person  and  examples  .^ 

It  is  true,  Christ  repeatedly  gave  notice,  that 
all  he  did  was  from  God  ;  and  of  himself  he  could 
do  iio'diing.  But  it  is  as  true,  that  he  is  as  abundantly 
represented  as  being  himself  the  great,  the  living, 
and  true  God  ;  and  operating  as  such.  How  shall 
we  dispose  of  this  seeming  contradiction  ?  The 
clew  has  already  been  hinted  ;  Christ  has  two  na- 
tures in  his  Person.  He  is  God;  and  he  is  man. 
And  he  is  constituted  a  Mediator.  And  in  passages 
coucerni'ig  Christ,  reference  is  sometimes  had  to 
the  one  of  his  natures;  and  sometimes  to  the  other. 
This  is  a  most  evident  fact.  "  I  am  the  root  and 
oiispring  of  David."  Here,  in  the  pronoun  I,  are 
contained  God  and  man.  As  God,  he  wrought  by 
his  own  power  ;  as  man,  he  wrought  by  the  power 
of  God. 

In  tiie  various  communications  of  Christ,  and 
in  the  records  given  of  him,  this  scemii^g  paradox 
is  abundantly  exhibited,  for  the  trial  of  man's  faith, 
that  Christ  was  God  ;  and  he  was  man  ;  that  he 
was  independent  ;  and  was  de|>endent  ;  and  t]ie 
essentia]  attributes  of  God,  and  ofnjan  centered  in 
hmi.     1  his  stumbled  the  Jews;  and  has  stumbled 


109 

thousands.  "  Blessed  is  he.  whosoever  shall  not  be 
olfended  in  me."  '*  Unto  you,  therefore,  who  be- 
lieve, he  is  precious  :  But  unto  them,  who  are  dis-- 
obedient,  the  stone,  which  the  builders  disallowed, 
the  same  is  made  the  head  of  the  corner  ;  and  a 
stone  of  stumbling,  and  a  rock  of  offence,  even  to 
them,  who  stumble  at  the  word,  beino;  disobedient ; 
w hereunto  also  they  were  appointed." 

Christ  says  "  No  man  knoweth  the  Son,  but  the 
Father  ;  neither  knoweth  any  man  the  Father,  but 
the  Son  ;  and  he,  to  whom  the  Son  will  reveal 
him."  This  appears  to  indicate,  that  those  twp 
Persons  in  the  Godhead  are  equally  incomprehen- 
sible ;  and  thus  equally  divine.  No  wonder  then, 
that  when  God  was  manifested  in  the  flesh,  his 
name  should  be  called  Wonderful ;  that  it  should 
be  declared  a  great  mystery  ;  and  that  it  should 
be  to  many  a  stumbling  block,  and  foolishness. 

Jesus  Christ  is  the  Life.  ''  I  am  the  resurrec- 
tion and  the  Life."  '•  I  am  the  way,  the  truth, 
and  the  Life."  "  In  him  was  Life."  "  This  is 
the  true  God,  and  eternal  Life."  Christ  is  not 
merely  the  way  to  life  ;  but  is  himself  said  to  be 
eternal  Life  ;  the  Prince  of  Life.  Christians  have 
eternal  life.  But  they  cannot  be  called  the  Life. 
Christ  as  a  man  and  Mediator  speaks  of  this  pow- 
er of  Life  being  given  him.  But  if  nothing  ap- 
pertained to  Christ,  but  a  derived  nature,  which 
received  this  gift  of  the  Father  to  have  life  in  him- 
self, surely  Christ  could  never,  with  such  empha- 
sis, be  called  the  life.  If  the  person  of  Christ 
had  no  life,  but  a  given  life,  he  would  not  have 
said,  "  Because  I  live,  ye  shall  live  also  :"  But, 
because  God  lives  ye  shall  hve  also.  The  Life  of 
their  lives  must  be  in  God.  Yet  it  was  in  Christ  j 
who  therefore  is  God. 
10 


110 

Christ,  upon  promising  the  Comforter,  said,  "He 
sliall  glorify  me  ;  for  he  shall  take  of  mine,  and 
show  it  unto  you."  Do  we  not  here  learn, 
that  Christ  is  God,  one  with  the  Father  ?  Would 
the  Holy  Ghost  have  it  as  a  first  object,  to  glorify 
a  derived  dependent  being  ?  "  He  shall  take  of 
«nine,  and  show  it  unto  you."  But  what  does  the 
Holy  Ghost  show  to  Christians  ?  He  shows  them 
the  character  and  glory  of  God  ;  and  the  way  of 
salvation.  The  following  is  the  result  of  this  dis- 
covery, as  the  apostle  decides  relative  to  all  the 
new-born  ;  *'  And  rejoice  in  hope  of  the  glory  of 
God."  The  Comforter  then,  in  order  to  glorify 
Christ,  glorifies  God. 

John  remarks,  that  Christ's  miracles  manifested 
forth  his  giorv.  Af^ain  :  "  Of  his  fulness  we  have 
received,  and  grace  for  grace."  If  Christ  had  no 
nature,  but  what  did  in  fact  receive  divine  commu- 
nications, why  is  it  said  to  be  his  glory,  that  was 
manifested  forth  ?  and  his  fulness,  from  which 
Christians  receive  their  divine  aids  and  consola- 
tions ?  Do  they  not  receive  these  things  from  God  ? 
And  did  not  Christ's  miracles  manifest  forth  the 
glory  of  him,  who  said  "  My  glory  I  will  not  give 
unto  another?"  Did  Paul's  miracles  manifest 
forth  PauPs  glory  ?  Or  was  it  of  Peter's  fulness, 
that  the  healed  Eneas,  and  the  raised  Dorcas  re- 
ceived ?  Surely  not.  And  if  Christ,  in  his  whole 
Person,  were  as  dependent  as  was  Paul,  or  Peter  ; 
does  it  not  a^  really  give  the  glory  to  another  be- 
si,de  God,  to  ascribe  \t  to  Christ,  as  to  ascribe  it  to 
Paul  or  Peter  ? 

Paul  said,  "  I  can  do  all  things  through  Christ, 
who  strengtheneth  me."  But  was  not  Paul's  sole 
dependence  on  God  ?  "  The  Lord  stood  by  me 
and  strengthened  me."  "  Now  he,  that  hath 
wrought  us  for  the  selfsame  thing,  is  God  ;"  "  For 


Ill 

it  is  God  who  worketh  in  you,  both  to  will  and  tq 
do — ."  "  God  who  hath  given  unto  us  his  holy 
Spirit."     Surely  then,  Christ  is  God. 

Jesus  Christ  will  fashion  the  bodies  of  his  saints 
*^  like  unto  his  glorious  body,  according  to  the 
workino;,  whereby  he  is  able  to  subdue  even  ail 
things  unto  himself." — Christ's  voice  raises  the 
dead.  ''  I  am  the  resurrection  and  the  life." 
But  we  are  informed,  that  '•  The  Father  raiseth  up 
the  dead,  and  quickeneth  them."  In  this  there- 
fore, we  learn  the  truth  of  Christ's  words,  "  I  and 
my  Father  are  one."  "  I  am  in  the  Father,  and 
the  Father  in  me."  Christ  is  called  "  the  Author 
and  Finisher"  of  the  Faith.  But  this  same  feith, 
we  are  informed,  is  of"  God's  operation."  "It  is 
the  gift  of  God."     Inevitably  then,  Christ  is  God. 

Read  the  description  of  Christ,  in  Rev.  i.  chap- 
ter ;  and  the  ascriptions  of  glory  to  him  there  found. 
"  Unto  him  that  loved  us,  and  washed  us  from  our 
sins,  in  his  own  blood, — be  glory  and  dominion, 
forever  and  ever.  Amen."  Are  the  heavenly 
hosts  idolaters  ?  Is  this  Saviour,  whom  they  w^or- 
ship,  a  merely  derived,  dependent  being  ?  If  he 
be,  I  see  not  that  the  Bible  can  be  exonerated 
from  the  just  imputation  of  establishing  a  most  deep 
and  refined  system  of  idolatry !  While  it  calls 
men  to  the  worship  of  the  one  only  living  and  true 
God  ;  it  at  the  same  time  institutes,  and  justifies 
the  worship  of  one,  who  is  totally  distinct  from, 
and  dependent  on  the  one  only  Uving  and  true 
Grod,  A  sentiment  which  appears  an  infinite  ab- 
surdity ! 

Behold  the  dying  Stephen  "  full  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  devoutly  "  calling  upon  God,  and  sayr 
ing,  Lord  Jesus  receive  my  spirit."  Could  such 
an  addrcfs  be  made,  under  an  infallible  guide,  to 
any  being  short  of  the  infinite  God  ' 


112 

In  the  Apocalypse,  the  infinite  Divinity  of  Je- 
sus Christ  is  repeatedly  and  clearly  ascertained. 
Some  of  these  evidences  of  Christ's  proper  Divini- 
ty have  been  already  noted.  One  or  two  more  I 
will  now  exhibit.  The  Person,  who  styles  hirfte^^f. 
the  Alpha  and  Omega,  in  the  Revelation,  who  is 
evidently  Jesus  Christ,  (see  Rev.  i.  8-18  ;  ii.  8  ; 
xxi.  6,  7,)  says,  "  He  that  overcometh,  shall  inher- 
it all  thingS;  and  I  will  be  his  God,  and  he  shall  be 
my  son."  These  are  the  words  of  him,  who  in 
the  preceding  verse  says,  "  I  am  Alpha  and  Ome- 
ga, the  beginning  and  the  end.  I  will  give  unto 
him  that  is  athirst  of  the  fountain  of  the  water  of 
life  freely."  Tliese  are  the  very  titles  that  Christ 
repeatedly  in  this  book  takes  to  himself.  It  is 
Christ  then,  who  here  speaks,  and  says,  of  him 
that  overcometh,  "  I  will  be  his  God,  and  he  shall 
be  my  son."  But  would  Christ  say  such  things  as 
these,  if  he  were  not  the  true  and  living  God  ? 
Would  not  the  affirmative  make  Christ  a  blasphe- 
mer !  He  is  the  God  and  fountain  of  life,  to  the 
Church  triumphant  I  and  this  too,  it  appears,  after 
the  Son  shall  have  given  up  the  mediatorial  king- 
dom, at  the  end  of  the  world,  that  God  may  be  all 
in  all !  Christ  has  a  nature  in  his  person,  that 
even  there  will  be  the  God  and  Fountain  of  life  to 
all,  who  shall  overcome.  This  idea  accords  with 
the  repeated  inspired  assertions,  that  Christ  has 
a  kingdom,  which  shall  have  no  end  ;  even  though 
his  mediatorial  kingdom  shall  close  at  the  end  of 
the' world. 

Of  the  new  Jerusalem,  it  is  said,  "  The  Lamb 
is  the  light  thereof."  And,  "  The  throne  of  God 
and  the  Lamb  shall  be  in  it,  and  his  servants  shall.-^ 
serve  him,  and  they  shall  see  his  face,  and  his 
name  shall  be  in  their  forehead."  Rev.  xxii.  3,  4. 
Are  not  God  and  the  Lamb  here  presented  as  one 
and  the  same  God  ?     What  is  the  antecedent  to 


113 

the  pronoun  his  and  him,  in  the  singular  number^ 
repeatedly  used  in  this  text  ?     God  and  the  Lair.b 
are  the  antecedent.     But  if  God  and  the  Lamb  be 
two  distinct  Beings,  why  is  it  said  in  relation  to 
both  of  them,  '•  his  servants  shall   serve  him,  and 
shall  see  his  face,  and  his  name  shall  be  in  their 
forehead  ?''     No  doubt  the  Father  and  the  Lamb 
are  in  a  sense  two,  as  has  appeared.     But  if  tbe 
Lamb  were  not  essentially  one  with  God,  it  could 
not  have  been  said  of  the  New  Jerusalem,   "  The 
Lamb  is  the  light  thereof;"  nor  could  God  and 
the  Lamb  have  been  represented,  in   the  above 
text,   as  one   Being,  whose   servants   serve  himj^^ 
v.ho  see  his  face,  and  his  name  is  in  their  forehead. 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  Judge  of  the  world.     In  Isai. 
xl.  10,  it  is  said,  '•  Behold  the  Lord  God  will  come 
— bis  reward  is  with  him."     But  Christ  says.  Rev. 
xxii.  12,  "  Behold  I  come  quickly,  and  my  reward 
is  with  me.''     Christ  then,  is  that  Lord  God  in  the 
former  passage.     The  great  day  is  hence  called, 
interchangeably,  the  day  of  Christ ;  as  Philipians 
i.    10;  and  the  day  of  God;  as  2  Pet.  iii.   12. 
'•  God  will  judge  the  world  by  the  Man  whom  he 
hath  ordained."     "  The  Father  judgeth  no  man, 
but  hath  committed  all  judgment  unto  the  Son." 
"  And  hath  given  him  authority  to  execute  judg- 
ment also,  because  he  is  the  Son  of  man."     In 
these  and  other  scriptures,  we  learn,  that  the  Son 
is  the  Person  of  the  final  Judge.     And  these  and 
similar  scriptures  relate  to  the  mediatorial  charac- 
ter of  Christ.     To  this  official  character  the  judg- 
ment is  indeed  a  thing  committed.     But  is  there 
nothing  in  the  Person  of  the  final  Judge  of  the 
world,  but  what  is  dependent  ?     This  is  the  ques- 
tion.    And  all  that  has  been  adduced  in  this  sec- 
tion, goes  to  decide  that  in  the  Person  of  the  Judge 
10* 


114 

is  infinite  Divinity,  as  well  as  humanity.     He  is 
the  root,  as  well  as  the  .offspring  of  David. 

I  will  note  some  of  the  scriptures,  which  ■  relate 
to  the  Judgment,  and  the  Person  of  the  Judge. 
And  let  the  reader  decide  whether  Christ  be,  or  be 
not,  really  God. 

Psalm  50.  "  The  mighty  God,  even  the  Lord 
hath  spoken,  and  called  the  earth,  from  the  rising 
of  the  sun,  unto  the  going  down  thereof.  Out  of 
Zion,  .the  perfection  of  beauty,  God  hath  shined. 
Our  God  shall  come,  and  shall  not  keep  silence  : 
a  tire  shall  devour  before  him  ;  and  it  shall  be  very 
tempestuous  round  about  him.  He  shall  call  to 
the  heavens  from  above,  and  to  the  earth,  that  he 
may  judge  his  people.  Gather  my  saints  together 
unto  me  ;  those  who  have  made  a  covenant  with 
me  by  sacrifice.  And  the  heavens  shall  declare 
his  righteousness ;  for  god  is  judge  himself. 
Hear,  O  my  people,  and  I  will  speak  ;  O  Israel, 
and  I  will  testify  agaiiist  thee  ;  i  am  god  even  thy 
GOD." — Here  is  the  final  Judge  of  the  world.  Is 
this  the  true  God?  Or  is  this  a  derived  and  con- 
stituted God  ? 

The  remainder  of  the  Psalm  furnishes  evidence 
no  less  decisive,  that  the  Being,  who  there  speaks, 
is  the  infinite  God.  We  are  assured  it  is  he, 
who  knows  all  the  fowls  of  the  mountains  ;  and  that 
ail  the  cattle  upon  a  thousand  hills  are  his.  The 
world  is  HIS  and  the  fulness  thereof.  He  says, 
»'  Call  upon  me  in  the  day  of  trouble  ;  I  will  de- 
Kver  thee  ;  and  thou  shalt  glorify  me.  But  unto 
the  wicked  God  saith,-^These  things  hast  thou 
done,  and  1  kept  silence. — But  I  will  reprove  thee, 
and  set  them  in  order  before  thee.  Now  consider 
this,  ye  who  forget  God  ;  lest  I  tear  you  in  pie- 
ces, and  there  be  none  to  deliver.  Whoso  offereth 
praise,  glorifieth  me;  and  to  him,  that  ordereth 


115 


his  conversation  aright,  will  [  show  the  salvation 
of  God." 

This  Psalm  must  be  vier/ed  as  the  words  of 
Christ.  It  is  evidently  the  words  of  the  very  Per- 
son of  the  fi'ial  Judge.  But  "the  Father  jud:^eth  no 
man;  bat  hath  committed  all  judgment  unto  the 
Son."  And  of  himself,  as  the  hnal  Judge.  Ciirist 
says,  ''  All  who  are  in  their  |j;raves.  shall  hear  hi:- 
voice,  and  shall  come  forth" — "'  When  the  Son  of 
man  shall  come  in  his  glory,  then  shall  he  sit  upon 
the  throne  of  his  glory ;  and  before  him  shall  be 
gathered  all  natioiis;  and  he  shall  separate  them.'' 
Most  exactly  these  accounts,  and  what  follows  this 
last  quoted  passage,  (Mat.  xxv.  32, — to  the  end,) 
accord  with  the  above  solemn  description,  in  the 
50th  Psalm.  "The  mighty  God.  even  the  Lord  hath 
spoken  and  called  the  earth — He  shall  call  to  the 
heavens  and  to  the  earth — Gather  my  saints  to- 
gether unto  me."  Here  is  the  voice  of  the  Arch- 
angel, and  the  trump  of  God.  But  Christ  tells  us, 
it  is  his  voice,  that  the  dead  shall  hear,  and  shall 
come  forth  ;  (John  v.  25,  28.)  TV^hen  Christ  speaks 
of  the  Son  of  man  coming  in  the  glory  of  his  Fa- 
ther, he  speaks  of  himself  in  relation  to  his  human- 
ity, and  to  his  constituted  official  character. 

The  Father  in  such  passages,  represents  the  ful- 
ness of  the  Godhead,  Father,  Word,  and  Holy 
Ghost.  But  Christ  speaks  also  of  his  coming  in 
his  own  glory.  "  "When  the  Son  of  man  shall 
come  in  his  glory,  then  shall  he  sit  on  the  throne 
of  his  glory."  And  surely,  in  the  50th  Psalm, 
Christ  does  come  in  his  own  glory,  as  God.  '•  God 
is  Judge  himself. — 1  am  God,  even  thy  God. — 
The  mighty  God,  even  Jehovah."  Would  the 
meek  and  lowly  Jesus  have  given  such  a  represen- 
tation of  himself,  if  he  had  been  only  a  derived,  de- 
pendent being  ?      Impossible  !     In  this  Psalm  is 


116 

presented  tlie  same  Angel  of  the  Lord,  who  ap- 
peared to  Abraham,  whom  Abraham  calls  Jeho- 
vah, and  whom  he  addressed  as  the  Judge  of  all  the. 
earth,  who  mast  do  right.  Christ  is  the  Judge. 
"The  Father judgeth  no  man,  but  hath  commit- 
ted alljudgment  unto  the  Son."  Yet  the  Judge 
is  God.  Paul  says,  "  We  are  sure  the  judgment  of 
God  is  according  to  truth,  against  them  who  com- 
mit such  things." — "And  thinkest  thouy  that  thou 
shalt  escape  the  judgment  of  God  /" — "  And  treas- 
urethup  unto  thyself  wrath  against  the  day  of  wrath, 
and  revelation  of  the  righteous  judgment  of  God  ?" 
'*  Is  there  unrighteousness  with  God  ?  How  then 
shall  God  Judge  the  world  ?" — ^^Surely  then,  though 
Christ  is  the  Judge  ;  yet,  in  the  New  Testament, 
as  well  as  the  Old,  the  Judge  is  God  himself.— 
"  The  Lord  himself  shall  be  revealed  from  heaven, 
in  flaming  tire. taking  vengeance  on  them  that  know 
not  God."  Here  is  the  Son  of  man  coming  in  his 
2;lory.  This  text  appears  to  be  in  allusion  to  that 
passage  in  the  50th  Psalm,  "A  fire  shall  devour  be- 
fore him,  and  it  shall  be  very  tempestuous  round 
about  him."  The  two  passages  relate  to  the  same 
Person  and  eveut, — the  appearing  of  Christ,  the 
Judge  of  the  world.  The  apostle  calls  it  the  glorious 
appearing  of  the  great  God,  our  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ. 

It  is  evident,  from  the  view  taken  of  these  passa- 
ges, which  relate  to  the  judgment,  that  Jesus  Christ 
IS  the  very  God,  as  well  as  man.  He  is  in  some 
mysterious  sense  distinct  from  the  Father,  who 
judgeth  no  man  :  Yet  he  is  infinitely  superior  to  a 
derived  dependent  being.  "  God  is  Judge  him- 
self."    God  and  the  Judge  are  essentially  one. 

There  is  no  doubt  but  the  three  Persons  in  the 
Godhead    will    all    be    engaged    in    the    great 


117 

work  of  the  final  judgment.  But  the  divine  exhi- 
bition is  represented  as  being  made  through  the 
Person  of  Christ.  When  it  is  said, '' the  Father 
judgeth  no  man,"  it  cannot  mean,  that  he  is  ex- 
cluded from  the  solemn  scene,  or  has  nothing  to 
do  with  the  judgment.  Nor  can  it  mean,  that  the 
Person,  who  is  the  manifest  Agent  in  the  judgment, 
is  essentially  inferior  to  the  Father.  For  neither 
of  these  ideas  does  the  Bible  admit.  But  the  sense 
appears  to  be  this  :  The  Judge  will  be  rendered 
visible,  by  his  gloiitied  humanity;  it  will  appear 
that  this  humanity  is  united  to  infinite  Divinity  ; 
that  this  infinite  Divinity  of  the  Judge  is  posses- 
sed of  some  personal  distinction  from  the  Father, 
who  is  at  the  head  of  the  economy  of  mediatorial 
grace  ;  yet  that  there  is  an  essential  unity  betweeit 
the  Person  of  the  Judge,  and  the  Father  ;  and  that 
the  whole  Godhead  are  united  in  that  momentous 
and  final  Assize, 

Some  explanations  of  difficulties  relative  to 
things  seemingly  contradictory  being  said  of  Christ, 
will  be  given  toward  the  close  of  the  next  section. 


JESUS  CHRIST  HAS  A  HUMAN  SOUL,  AS  WELL  AS 
BODY. 

This  has  been  repeatedly  token  for  granted,  in 
the  pieceding  section.  I  shall  now  Ciideavor  to 
prove  it  from  the  word  of  God. 

Some  are  of  the  opinion,  that  the  soul  of  Christ, 
being  inconceivably  superior  to  humanity,  was  lit- 
erally derived  from  God,  as  a  son  from  a  father, 
some  time  before  the  creation  of  the  world.  That 
this  derived  literal  Sou  of  God  was  the  Logos,  or 
^Vord,  the  Messiah.  That  the  names  and  attri- 
butes of  Godare  ascribed  to  him.  as  being  of  the  es- 
sence of  the  divine  nature,  and  by  divine  constitu- 
tion. That  the  Father  sees  tit,  that  this  his  own  lite- 
ral Son  should  be  honored,  as  himself;  though  he 
is  a  being  totally  distinct  from  him,  as  was  Isaac 
from  Abraham ;  and  is  as  dependent,  as  a  crea- 
ture. This  Being,  who  they  teach  is  a  God  by  na- 
ture, and  is  constituted  a  real  God,  is  the  soul  of 
Christ.  He  came  down,  and  took  only  a  human 
body,  when  he  was  born  of  the  virgin. 

This  view  of  the  soul  of  Christ,  I  think,  is  refut- 
ed in  the  preceding  section.  I  now  purpose  to 
show  that  the  Logos,  the  second  in  the  divine  Tri- 
nity, did  t^ke  into  personal  union  with  himself, 
maiihood.  a  human  soul  and  body  ;  and  is  hence 
really  man  as  well  as  God.  I  will  attempt  to  ex- 
hibit some  of  the  e\idence  that  this  sentiment  is 
clearly  taught  in  the  word  of  God. 


120.  ^ 

Jesus  Christ  himself  says,  "  I  am  the  Root  and 
offspring  of  David."  Could  he,  according  to  any 
known  sense  of  language,  be  David's  ottspring, 
w  ithout  possessmg  a  human  soul  ?  An  assertion  in 
the  use  of  language,  contrary  to  its  known  import, 
With  unknown  mental  reservations,  has  ever  been 
esteemed  falsehood.  Christ  assures  us,  he  is  Da- 
vid's obspring.  And  in  a  multitude  of  instances 
he  calls  himself  the  Son  of  man.  Do  we  find  the 
oilspring, — the  sons  of  man, — without  human 
souls  /  Have  we  ever  been  taught  to  affix  to  the 
terms,  offspring,  and  son  of  man  the  idea  of  a  hu- 
man body  only  ?  If  not,  what  right  have  we  so  es- 
sentially to  vary  from  the  common  use  of  language, 
without  express  warrant  thus  to  do,  when  the  words 
are  applied  to  Christ  ?  At  such  a  rate,  man  may 
construe  any  sentence  in  the  Bible  in  any  way, 
which  his  fancy  may  suggest. 

\S  e  are  informed,  tliat  "  Christ  was  made  of  the 
seed  of  David,  according  to  the  flesh."  This  may 
seem  at  tirst  view  (or  taken  most  literally)  to  favor 
the  idea  of  the  opponent,  that  Christ  took  only  a 
human  body.  But  this  is  indeed  "  judging  after 
the  outward  appearance."  Let  the  word  of  God 
explain  itself.  What  is  the  common  use,  in  the 
Bible,  of  the  word  flesh,  v.hen  used  in  such  a  con- 
nexion ?  Let  this  point  be  ascertained  by  the  fol- 
lowing passages.  Relative  to  the  flood,  we  are  in- 
formed, ''  Ail  flesh  died.''  God  afterward  said, 
"  Nor  shall  ali  flesh  be  cut  off  any  more."  *'  For 
who  is  there  of  all  flesh,  that  heard  the  voice  of 
tiie  living  God,  speaking  out  of  the  midst  of  the 
fire,  as  ye  have,  and  lived  V  '•  If  he  set  his  heart 
upon  man,  if  he  gather  unto  him  the  spirit,  and 
his  breath,  all  flesh  shall  perish  together,  and  m.an 
sljall  turn  again  unto  dust.''  Lnto  thee  shall  all 
flesh  come."    '•  The  glory  of  the  Lord  shall  be  re- 


fl21 

vealcd,  and  all  fle^h  shall  see  it  together.''  "All  flesh 
is  ati  grass/'  *'  AH  tiesti  shall  know  that  I,  Jeho- 
vah, am  thy  Saviour  and  thy  Redeemer,  the  mighty 
Oiie  of  Jacob."  '''  By  hre  and  by  sword  will  the 
Lord  {)lead  vith  all  ile^^h."  ••  All  flesh  shall  come 
a -id  worship  before  me."  "  iNo  desh  shall  have 
peice."  ••  Cursed  is  the  man,  that  trusteth  in  man. 
aid  aiaketh  ilesh  his  arm."  ''  The  Lord  hath  a 
coiitroversy  with  the  nations,  he  will  plead  with 
all  desh."  '-  I  will  brin<^  evil  upon  all  flesh."  "  All 
flesh  shall  see  that  1  the  Lord  have  kindled  it.'' 
"  The  gods,  wliose  dwelling  is  not  with  flesh." 
"  Be  silent,  O  all  flesh  before  the  Lord."  "Except 
those  days  be  shortened,  there  shall  no  flesh  be 
saved."  "'  I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh." 
"Thou  hast  given  him  power  over  all  flesh."  "By 
the  deeds  of  the  law  shall  no  flesh  be  justified." 
"  Tnat  no  flesh  should  glory  in  his  presence." 
"  We  wrestle  not  with  flesh  and  blood."  I  migh| 
proceed,  in  quoting  such  texts  :  But  it  is  needless. 
We  learn  from  these  quotations  the  language  of 
the  Bible  upon  this  particular  ;  that  by  the  word 
flesh,  in  such  a  connexion,  is  meant,  not  merely  the 
body  of  man,  but  the  whole  of  man.  And  when- 
ever the  word  imports  otherwise,  notice  is  clearly 
given  of  it,  in  the  sense  of  the  passage. 

When  we  therefore  read  of  Christ's  being  made 
of  the  seed  of  David,  according  to  the  flesh  ;  and 
of  God's  being  manifested  in  the  flesh  ;  what  right 
has  man  to  exclude  from  the  term  the  human  soul, 
a^id  ^ay,  that  Christ  took  only  a  human  body  ? 
Tnis  must  bs  merely  arbitrary,  and  not  according 
to  tile  iieneral  language  of  the  Bible. 

Of  Christ  we  read,  "Tiie  vVord  was  made  flesh, 

and  dwelt  among  us.'*     Of  whom  (i.  e,  of  Israel) 

as  concerning  the  flesh,  Ciinst  came,  who  is  over 

aU  God  blessed  forever."     "  Knowing  tiiat  Go^ 

11 


122 

had  sworn  with  an  oath  to  him,  (Davie})  that  of  the 
fruit  of  his  loins,  according  to  the  flesh,  he  would 
raise  up  Christ.''  Can  we,  in  the  view  of  the  above 
quotations,  feel  warranted  to  say,  that  those  ex- 
pressions, of  Christ's  coming  in  the  flesh,  import 
that  he  took  only  a  human  body  ?  As  the  word 
flesh,  in  the  general  language  of  the  Bible,  when 
applied  to  man,  imports  soul  and  body  ;  why  is  not 
uns  the  import  of  the  word,  when  applied  to 
CJhrist's  coming  in  our  nature  ?  It  is  arbitrary,  and 
unprecedented  in  the  Bible,  to  say,  that  the  word 
flesh,  in  such  a  connexion,  relates  to  Christ's  hu- 
man body  only. 

But  this  point  is  settled  by  tlie  apostle  to  tlie 
Hebrews,  in  various  passages.  "But  we  see  Jesus, 
who  was  made  a  little  lower  than  the  Angels,  for 
the  suiiering  of  death,  crowned  with  glory  and 
honor."  Jesus  then,  was  *'  made  a  little  lower 
than  the  Angels."  A  preceding  passage  ascertains, 
tliat  the  words  are  in  allusion  to  the  exclamation 
v)f  David,  in  Psalm  viii.  4,  5.  "  What  is  man,  that 
thou  art  mindful  of  him  ? — For  thou  hast  made 
him  a  little  lower  than  the  Angels.''  From  this, 
the  inspired  writer  infers,  that  Christ  was  made  a 
little  lower  than  the  Angels.  But  the  deduction 
rests  on  this  ground,  that  Christ  is  a  real  max.  For 
if  he  be  not  a  real  man,  then  it  does  not  fojiow 
from  man's  being  made  a  httle  lower  than  the  An- 
gels, that  Christ  was  ms.de  a  little  lower  than  the 
Angels. 

The  same  apostle  further  decides  tlie  poi nt> 
^'  For  both  he  that  sanctitieth,  and  they  that  are 
sanctified,  are  all  of  one  ;  for  which  cause  he  is 
iiot  ashamed  to  call  them  brethren."  How  are 
Christ  and  his  people  one,  in  the  sense  here  ex- 
pressed, if  he  have  no  human  soul  ?  His  assuming 
proper   humanity,  is  the  very  point  on  which  the 


123 


oneness  rests.  "  Wherefore  in  all  things  it  be- 
liooved  him  to  be  ma(ie  like  unto  his  brelhren,' 
But  can  a  human  body,  without  a  human  soul,  coia- 
stitute  this  oneness  with  his  human  brethren  '/ 
Most  certainly  it  cannot.  The  apostle  proceeds. 
"  Forasmach  then,  as  the  children  are  partakers 
of  flesh  and  blood,  he  also  himself  like\tfse  took 
part  of  the  same."  Inasmuch  as  they  were  human  j 
he  likewise  became  human.  He  partook  of  flesh 
and  blood,  in  the  same  sense  in  which  they  partake 
of  them.  But  surely  they  have  not  only  bodies, 
but  souls.  The  sense  of  the  passage  under  consi- 
deration, is  not  this,  that  Christ  took  a  part  of  what 
they  had  ;  or  took  a  body  without  a  soul :  But  the 
sense  is,  that  he  fully  participated  with  them  in  their 
nature.  In  the  Greek  it  is  more  emphatically  ex- 
pressed ; — •'  Himself  also,  in  like  manner,  partici- 
pated of  the  same."  The  Greek  adverb  here  used 
(parapleesioos)  is  more  emphatical  than  the  Eng- 
glish  rendering  ''  in  like  manner."  It  indicates, 
with  the  adjoining  words,  that  Christ  fully  partici- 
pated with  his  brethren  in  their  nature.  But  if  he 
took  only  a  human  body, he  was  very  far  from  fully 
participating  with  his  brethren  in  thtiir  nature  ; 
and  the  assertion  in  the  text  appears  in  that  case 
an  untruth.  It  purports  to  assert,  that  Christ  be- 
came what  man  in  his  formation  was.  But  we 
know  the  soul  is  the  man.  Christ  taught  the  Sad- 
duces,  relative  to  the  resurrection, "^  that  Abraham, 
Isaac  and  Jacob  now  live,  though  their  bodies  are 
dissolved.     Their  souls  then,  arc  themselves. 

The  apostle  to  the  Hebrews  further  teaches, 
*'  For  verily  he  (Christ)  took  not  on  him  the  nature 
of  A'r^els  ;  but  he  took  oa  him  the  seed  of  Abra- 
h  im."     It  is  true  the  word  nature  here,  before  An* 

*  Mark  xii.  26,  27. 


124 

gels,  i«!  not  in  the  Greek.  "  He  took  not  on  An- 
gels ;  but  he  took  on  the  seed  of  Abraham.  1  ac- 
knowledge the  Greek  may  admit  the  followirig 
rendering  ;  He  took  not  hold  of  Angels  ;  but  he 
took  hold  of  the  seed  of  Abraham.  But  the  follow- 
ing consideration  favors  the  sense  given  by  our 
translators.  Christ  did  indeed  take  on  himself  the 
seed  of  Abraham.  He  became  one  with  Abraham's 
seed  ;  and  their  elder  Brother.  In  the  divine  pro- 
mise to  Abraham,  Christ  is  identitied  with  Abra- 
ham's seed.  "  I  will  establish  my  covenant  be- 
tween me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee."  In 
the  word  seed  here,  we  find^  by  other  scriptures, 
three  subjects  are  compiised.  1.  Christ.  "  Now 
to  Abraham  and  his  seed  were  the  promises  made. 
He  saith  not,  And  to  seeds,  as  of  many  ;  but  as  of 
one,  and  to  thy  seed,  which  is  Christ.  2.  Believers 
are  included.  ^*  If  ye  are  Christ's  then  are  ye 
Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  pro- 
mise." 3.  Abraham's  natural  olfspring  were  in- 
cluded. "  And  I  will  give  unto  thee  and  to  thy 
seed — all  the  land  of  Canaan."  "  Ye  (infidel 
Jews')  are  the  children  of  the  covenant,  which  God 
made  with  our  fathers,  saying  unto  Abraham,  and 
in  thv  seed  shall  the  kindreds  of  the  earth  be  bless- 
ed."* Here  are  Christ,  believers,  and  their  na- 
tural otfspring,  all  comprised  in  the  term  seed,  in 
that  covenant  of  grace  with  Abraham.  Now  there- 
fore, can  this  scriptural  representation  admit,  that 
while  Christ  is  so  classed  with  believers  and  their 
children,  as  to  be  known  under  one  and  the  same 
term  with  thciTi,  the  Seed  of  Abraham  ;  yet  that 
he  is  so  dissimilar  to  them,  as  to  have  no  human 
soul  ?  Surely,  if  Christ  took  no  human  soul,  he  is 
wot,  according  to  any  known  language,  the  seed  of 

*  Act?  iii.  29. 


125 

Abraham.  He.  in  that  case,  took  on  neither  the 
nature  of  Anj;els,  nor  the  seed  of  Abraham,  in  the 
sense  of  any  language  known  to  man. 

Further,  says  the  sacred  writer  :  "Wherefore  in 
all  things  it  behooved  him  to  be  made  like  unto 
his  brethren  ;  that  he  might  be  a  merciful  and 
faithful  high  Priest,  in  things  pertaining  to  God,  to 
make  reconciliation  for  the  sins  of  the  people. 
For  in  that  he  himself  hath  suffered,  beingtempted, 
he  is  able  to  succour  them,  that  are  tempted.'- 
Can  this  sacred  text  leave  any  doubt  on  the  mind, 
whether  Christ  took  a  human  soul  as  well  as  body^^ 
Could  he,  in  all  things,  be  made  hke  unto  his  breth- 
ren, without  a  human  soul  ?  The  sympathies  of 
humanity,  expressed  in  this  text,  clearly  imply, 
that  Christ  had  a  human  soul  ;  or  I  should  despair 
of  learning  the  true  sense  of  language.  And  the 
history  of  Christ  demonstrates,  that  he  did  possess 
all  the  feelings  of  humanity.  In  correspondence 
with  this,  the  inspired  writer  further  remarks  ; 
•'  For  we  have  not  an  high  Priest,  who  cannot  be 
touched  with  the  feeling  of  our  infirmities  ;  but 
was  in  all  points  tempted  like  as  we  are,  yet  with- 
out sin."'  Inspiration  here  unequivocally  decides, 
that  Christ  had  all  tbe  feelings  of  human  nature, 
sin  only  excepted.  And  did  he  have  these,  with- 
out a  human  soul  ?  The  supposition  of  the  affirm- 
ative is  a  glaring  absurdity  !  and  is  contradicted  by 
much  of  the  language  of  this  epistle. 

Could  Christ  so  abundantly  call  himself  the  Son 
of  man,  if  he  had  no  human  soul  ?  Is  not  this  ap- 
pellation, which  is  so  generally  assumed  by  him- 
self, fully  calculated  to  show,  that  Christ  meant  we 
should  understand  he  had  a  human  soul  ?  And 
would  he  deceive  mankind  ? 

It  has  been  esteemed  a  great  excellency  in  the 
scheme  of  man's  salvation,  that  we  have  a  Savioitv 
11^ 


126 

in  onr  own  nature  ;  that  the  Medium  of  our  access 
to  God  is  a  glorified  man  ;  not  in  appearance  only, 
but  in  reality.  And  that  he  is,  at  the  same  time,  in 
real  union  with  the  Godhead.  That  our  heavenly 
Bridegroom  is  thus  of  the  same  nature  with  his 
bride  ;  as  well  as  one  with  the  infinite  God.  Here 
is  the  Antitype  of  Jacob's  ladder,  which  reached 
from  earth  to  heaven.  Its  foot,  on  the  surface  of 
the  .earth,  has  been  supposed  to  relate  to  Christ's 
humanity.  Audits  top,  at  the  throne  of  God,  to 
relate  to  his  Divinity.  But  if  Christ  have  not  real 
humanity,  and  have  not,  at  the  same  time  real  Di- 
vinity, the  original  seems  utterly  to  fail  of  answer- 
ing to  the  copy. 

To  say,  that  Christ's  taking  merely  a  human 
body,  may  account  for  all  tliat  is  said  of  his  ap* 
pearing  in  human  nature,  does  not  satisfy  the  feel- 
ings of  common  sense  upon  the  subject.  Should 
an  angelic  soul  appear  in  the  body  of  our  deceased 
friend,  it  would  not  constitute  him  the  person  of 
that  friend;  nor  even  a  human  being.  If  the  An- 
gel Gabriel  for  once  is  called  the  m.an  Gabriel,  be- 
cause he  assumed  a  human  appearance  ;  we  can- 
not hence  infer,  that  all,  which  is  said  of  Christ's 
coming  in  the  flesh,  and  being  the  Son  of  man, 
may  be  consistent  with  his  really  possessing  no 
more  of  humanity,  than  Gabriel  for  once  appear- 
ed to  possess, — a  human  body.  We  should  need 
something  very  express  to  convince  us,  tha.t  our 
heavenly  Bridegroom,  the  Man  Christ  Jesus,  the 
Man  whom  God  hath  ordained  to  judge  the  world, 
the  offspring  of  David,  made  of  the  seed  of  David 
according  to  the  flesh,  the  emphatical  Seed  of  A- 
braham,  who  was  made  in  all  things  like  unto  his 
brethren,  touched  with  the  feeling  of  their  infirm- 
ities, a  id  tempted  in  nil  things  like  as  we  are,  vet 
vvithout  sin,  and  is  caled  the   Son   of  man,  about 


1-27 

twice  as  often,  as  he  is,  the  Son  of  God  ;  yet  had 
nothing  human,  but  an  animal  body  !  The  soul  is 
the  man.  And  a  human  body  without  a  human 
soul  is  not  a  man.  Of  Christ,  God  says,  '4  have 
exalted  one,  chosen  out  of  the  people.''  But  a 
mere  human  body,  containing  for  a  soul  an  off- 
spring literally  derived  from  God,  as  a  son  from  a 
father,  and  who  is  called  the  mighty  God,  and  the 
everlasting  Father,  could  never  answer  to  this  de- 
scription, of  "  one  chosen  out  of  the  people." 
Such  a  being,  as  we  are  called  upon,  by  some,  to 
believe  Christ  to  be,  utterly  fails  of  answering  to 
the  descriptions  given  of  Jesus  Christ,  both  as  to 
his  Divinity,  and  as  to  his  humanity. 

Our  Lord  is  represented  as  saying,  (Heb.  x.  .5.) 
••  A   body   hast  thou  prepared  me."      Adequate 
reasons  may  be  assigned,  for  this  declaration   of 
Christ,  without  supposing  that  he  meant  to  exclude 
from  his   human   existence   a   human  soul.     The 
whole  teiLt,  from  which  these  words  of  Christ  pur- 
port to  be  a   quotation,    reads   thus.  Psalm  xl.  6, 
''  Sacrifice  and  offering  thou  didst  not  desire:  mine 
cars  hast  thou  opened  ;"  in  the  Hebrew,  bored  s 
relating,  as  expositors  inform,  to   the   law,  Exo. 
xxi.  6,  where  a  servant,  willing   to  serve  his  mas- 
ter all  his  days,  should  have  his  ear  bored,  as  the 
seal  of  his  engagement.     Christ,  v»hen  he  became 
God^s  servant  on  earth,  to  take  away  sin  by  the' 
sacrifice  of  himself,  represents  himself  as  receiv- 
ing this  seal  of  submission.     "  Mine  ear  hast  thou 
bored.'?.     The  apostle,  quoting  this  text,  is  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  instructed  to  vary  from  its  letter,  and 
to  give  it  a  sense,   w^hioh  immediately   relates   to 
Christ's   sacrifice  of  himself  for   sin  ;  which  was 
more  literally  to  be  made  in  his  body.     The  text 
quoted,  is  as  though  Christ  had  said.  The  bodies  of 
tiiose  beasts  offered  in  sacrifice  thou  didst    not. 


128 

eventually  desire.  Tlicy  had  reached  their  end, 
and  were  ceasing  ;  being  in  themselves  insufficient 
to  take  away  sin.  The  sacrifice  of  my  body,  typi- 
fied by  them,  must  do  this.  And  here  I  am. 
This  body  for  sacrifice  thou  hast  prepared  me ; 
as  was  implied  in  my  ear  being  bored,  in  Psalm 
xl.  6.  But  does  this  teach,  that  Christ  took  noth- 
ing human,  but  a  body  ?  By  no  means.  Paul  fur- 
nishes an  explanation  of  this  phraseology  of  Christ. 
He,  for  the  same  reason  that  Chrisl's  body  is  spok- 
en of  as  in  the  above  text,  (viz.  in  allusion  to  the 
bodies  of  beasts  offered  in  sacrifice)  says,  '*  I  be- 
seech you  therefore  brethren,  by  the  mercies  of 
God,  that  ye  present  your  bodies  a  living  sacrifice, 
holy,  acceptable  unto  God.  which  is  your  reasona- 
ble service."  Can  wc  infer  from  this  text,  that 
those  Roman  Christians  had  no  human  souls  ?  No 
more  are  we  to  infer  from  the  other  phraseology, 
that  Christ  had  no  human  soul. 

The  word  body  is  sometimes  used  (even  where 
there  is  no  allusion  to  ancient  sacrifices)  to  repre- 
sent the  whole  man.  ••  The  same  is  a  perfect  man, 
and  able  also  to  bridle  the  whole  body."  Is  the 
soul  here  excluded  ?  Men  say,  Some  body  is  com- 
ing. No  body  was  there.  It  is  needless  to  re- 
mark, that  in  such  cases,  the  soul  is  not  excluded. 

Some  may  imagine,  from  the  words,  that  Christ 
"  took  on  him  the  form  of  a  servant,  and  was  made 
in  the  likeness  of  man.  and  being  found  in  fashion 
as  a  man — ;"  that  he  took  only  the  external  like- 
ness, the  body  of  a  man.  But  this  is  not  the  sense 
of  that  text.  The  form  of  God,  in  the  same  text, 
we  have  seen,  imports,  that  Christ  is  really  God. 
4nd  the  form  of  a  servant  in  this  text,  imports 
a  real  servant.  "  Behold  my  servant,  whom  I  up- 
hold." Why  is  it  not  then  a  fact,  that  the  like- 
ness   of  raan,   and  the  fashion  as  a  man;   in  the 


129 

same  text,  mean  a  real  man?  The  whole  analogy 
of  the  text,  and  the  sentiment  of  the  sacred  Word, 
decide  in  the  athmiative.  This  phraseology  of 
the  text  cannot  have  been  designed  to  teach,  that 
Christ  is  not  the  true  God  ;  that  he  did  not  take 
the  place  of  a  real  servant ;  and  did  not  become  a 
real  man.  For,  that  he  did  take  real  manhood, 
clearly  appears  in  the  sacred  Oracles, 

As  Christ  is  possessed  of  real  Divinity,  and  real 
humanity  mysteriously  united  in  his  one  Person  ^ 
so  all  the  Perfections  of  God,  and  all  the  proper- 
ties of  a  perfectly  holy  man,  unite  in  the  Person  of 
Jesus  Christ.  Accordingly  we  find  them  ascribed 
to  Christ.  Sometimes  the  properties  of  his  hu- 
manity are  ascribed  ;  and  sometimes  the  perfec- 
tions of  his  Divinity.  In  the  former  case,  he  is 
the  dependent,  circumscribed  man.  In  the  latter, 
he  is  the  independent,  omniscient,  almighty  God ; 
and  his  blood  is  of  infinite  avail.  Hence  we  are 
never  to  adduce  an  argument,  from  what  is  said  of 
his  humanity,  to  disprove  his  Divinity.  Nor  ever 
to  adduce  an  argument,  from  what  is  said  of  his 
Divinity,  to  disprove  his  humanity. 

The  union  of  the  two  natures  in  the  person  of 
Christ,  and  his  constituted  mediatorial  character, 
furnish  a  fruitful  source  of  objection  and  error  a- 
mong  short-sighted  depraved  beings.  •  It  is  true, 
things  are  said  of  Christ,  which  at  first  view,  seem 
a  real  contradiction. 

To  afford  relief  in  this  point  then,  let  it  ever  be 
remembered,  that  the  sacred  Oracles  do  furnish  us 
with  three  classes  of  sacred  texts,  which  relate  to 
Jesus  Christ. 

One  class  relates  simply  to  his  humanity.  In 
this  we  are  as  iured  of  his  being  born  of  a  woman  ; 
being  a  child;  beiijg  twelve  years  old  ;  increasing 
iu  wisdom  and  stature,  and  in  favor  with  God  and 


isa 

man;  his  hungering,  thirsting,  being  weary:  sleep- 
ing; being  touched  with  the  Icehng  of  ourintirmi- 
ties ;  being  fed,  and  clothed  ;  and  many  such 
things.  These  things  alluded  to  the  •' man  Christ 
Jesus." 

A  second  class  of  sacred  texts,  alludes  to  him, 
as  the  true  and  intinite  God.  .This  class  of  texts 
has  been  adduced  in  the  sixth  section  of  this  book. 
Here  he  is  the  Mighty  God  ;  the  Everlasting  Fa- 
ther; the  true  God,  and  Eternal  Life. 

A  third  class  alludes  to  Christ  as  God  and  man 
united  ; — but  a  constituted  31ediator;  acting  in  an 
ofhcial  capacity,  which  is  assumed,  and  which  rests 
on  a  stipulation  between  him  and  his  Principal, 
God  the  Father.  Here,  though  he  is  the  intinite 
God,  yet  as  Mediator  he  has  a  God  as  well  as  we. 
*'  I  ascend  to  my  Father,  and  your  Father  ;  to  my 
God,  and  your  God." 

Many  texts  might  be  quoted,  as  belonging  to  this 
class  ;  but  a  few  may  suffice. 

"  I  came  not  to  do  mine  own  w'ill  ;  but  the  will 
of  him  that  sent  me."  "I  seek  not  mine  own 
glory  ;  but  the  glory  of  him  that  sent  me."  ^'  I 
can  of  myself  do  nothinf^."  '•  The  Father  that 
dwelleth  in  me,  he  doeth  the  work."  "  The  Fa- 
ther loveth  the  Son,  and  hath  committed  all  things 
into  his  hands."  ''  As  the  Father  hath  hfe  in  him- 
self;  so  hath  he  given  unto  the  Son  to  have  life  in 
himself,  that  he  should. give  eteinal  life  to  as  many 
as  he  hath  given  ^»im."  •'  AH  power  is  ^ivcn  u;:(o 
me  in  heaven  and  on  earth."  ''Him  hath  God 
iTiised  up,  a. id  made  him  to  be  both  Lord  and 
Christ," — -'and  placed  him  at  his  own  right  hand 
in  the  heavenly  places,  far  above  all  principalities 
and  powers."  "  Sit  thou  at  my  right  hand,  until  I 
make  thine  enemies  thy  footstool."'  "  Him  hath 
God  .exalted  with  his  ri§ht  hand  to  be  a  Prince  and 


131 

a  Saviour,  to  give  repentance  to  Israel,  and  tor* 
giveness  of  sins/'  *•  Oi'  that  day  and  i  o  jr  knoweth 
no  man.  nor  the  Son ;  but  the  Father  only,"  i.  e.  the 
Son  never  received  this  to  reveal  to  man  ;  and 
hence  knows  it  not  as  ?dediator.  ''I  know  you  not 
whence  you  are  :  depart  fiom  me.'' — Or  I  never 
knew  you  as  given  to  me.  ^*  Then  shall  the  J'jon 
also  be  sub.ect  to  him  that  did  put  all  things  under 
him,  that  God  may  be  all  in  ail."  Or,  then  shall 
the  mediatorial  character  be  eternally  relinquished, 
as  having  fully  accomplished  its  design  :  and  tiie 
iniinite  triune  God  shall  thenceforth  exist  as  from 
eternity. 

These  and  similar  texts  have  by  many  been  ad- 
duced to  disprove  the  real  Divinity  of  Christ.  But 
they  are  nothing  to  the  purpose.  They  prove  only 
that  the  iniinite  Divinity  of  Christ  humbled  him- 
self to  act  in  a  subordinate  and  constituted  grade 
between  otifended  heaven,  and  oilending  earth. 
And  in  this  office  work  Christ  ackiiowled^^es  a  de- 
pendence on  the  intitiite  Godhead.  As  the  cha- 
racter is  a  constituted  one  ;  so  the  official  acts  are 
generally  noted  as  dependetU  on  the  Failier:  while 
yet  the  eternal  Divinity  of  the  most  sacred  Incunv 
bent,  now  and  then,  bursts  through  the  habiliments 
of  its  constituted  degradation,  and  shines  with  its 
own  native  iniinite  lustre,  as  the  eternal,  the  true 
and  the  living  God,  equal  with  the  Father,  and  one 
with  him. 

Man  if  he  will  presume  to  cavil,  may  say  ;  How 
can  two  such  dissimi-ar  natures  unite  in  one  per- 
son '!  The  Divinity  of  Christ,  upon  the  triaitaijaa 
tlieory,  had  a  personal  existence  eternal  ages  be- 
fore his  humanity  existed.  Aiid  his  hu'ran  St^ul 
seems  to  be  represented  as  a  person.  How  can  two 
such  natures  constitute  one  person  ?  Reply.  Nico- 
demu5  mijjht  repeat  his  question,  '•  How  can  these- 


132 

things  be?"  while  yet  facts  are  iiicontestable* 
There  is  a  diilerence  between  an  unanswerabie 
oVeciioii  against  a  point  ;  and  an  uiianswerable 
quostion  in  relation  to  it.  The  latter  docs  b\  no 
nieai;s  amount  to  the  tbi mer;  though  too  mariv  in- 
advertently imagine  it  does.  Questions  unanswer- 
able by  man  do  attend  every  work  of  God  :  and 
cerianiiy  then  must  attend  the  existence  oi  God 
hiinseif.  "  Canst  thou  by  searching  find  out  God  /" 
*'  No  man  kiioweth  the  Son,  but  the  Father  ;  nei- 
ther knoweth  any  man  the  Father,  but  the  Son, 
a.:d  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  wiil  reveal  him." 
Tins  might  seem  enough  to  silence  every  cavil 
against  things  clearly  re^  eaied. 

it  is  a  fact;  that  Christ  has  clearly  taught  us  that 
he  is  both  divine  and  human  ;.  and  hence  that  the 
perfections  of  the  one  nature,  and  the  properties 
of  the  other,  do  unite  in  him.  ''  1  am  the  Root 
and  ofispring  of  David."  He  does  assure  us  that 
*•  of  myself  I  can  do  nothing: ;"  and  yet  says,  '*  I 
•am  the  Almighty."  He  does  assure  us  that  his 
Person  was  the  son  of  man  ;  and  yet  the  everlast- 
itig  Father.  That  he  is  the  seed  of  Abraham ; 
and  yet  the  mighty  God.  That  he  was  born  of 
the  virgin,  and  God  was  his  Father;  and  yet  he  is 
*'  without  father,  withotit  mother,  and  without  de- 
scent ;  having  neither  beginning  of  days,  nor  end 
of  time."  These  things  we  are  taught  of  the 
Person  of  Christ.  And  there  is  no  medium  be- 
tween believing,  and  disbelieving  this  '^  record, 
which  God  has  given  o*^  his  Son."  Christians  be- 
heve  •,  not  because  they  can  comprehend  all  that 
is  said  concerning  Christ ;  but  because  God  has. 
declared  it.  They  believe  on  divine  testimony, 
and  "'  set  to  their  seal  that  God  is  true."  The 
oivector  stumbles  at  the  mysteries  of  godliness. 
lie  cannot  believe.     The  dispute  is  between  liim, 


133 

and  Christ ;  and  Christ  will  decide  it  with  him,  in 
due  time. 

There  are  things  in  the  representations  given  of 
him,  who  is  wonderful,  and  whom  no  man  knoweth, 
but  the  Father,  which  I  design  never,  in  this  life, 
to  attempt  to  answer,  nor  explain.  Let  me  repeat 
the  sacred  passage,  "  Secret  things  belong  to  the 
Lord  our  God  ;  but  those  which  are  revealed,  to 
us,  and  our  children  forever."  Man  ought  never 
to  be  wise  above  what  is  written.  The  things 
above  stated  of  Christ,  are  revealed  ;  and  to  be- 
lieve them,  belongs  to  us,  and  our  children.  It  is 
revealed,  "  I  am  the  Root  and  the  Olfspring  of 
David."  It  is  thus  revealed,  that  these  infinitely 
dissimilar  natures  are  united  in  the  Person  of  Christ, 
and  are  both  comprised  in  the  pronoun  I,  in  this 
text.  But  the  mode,  in  which  these  two  natures 
unite,  to  constitute  one  Person,  is  a  secret  thing, 
which  belongeth  to  God.  Hence  to  attempt  an 
explanation  of  it,  would,  in  my  opinion,  be  both 
presu  v«ption  and  impiety.  And  I  shall  never  feel 
myself  pressed  with  any  argument,  urged  from  the 
dilHculties,  which  may  seem  to  attend  the  union  of 
those  two  natures  in  one  Person,  any  more  than . 
with  the  question,  how  can  God  exist  eternally  or 
independently  ?  Or,  "  How  can  these  things  be  ?" 


12 


S^^^m^  7I!E2i 


THE  GODHEAD  CONSISTS  OF  A  TRINITY  IN  UNITY. 

It  has  already  been  ascertained,  that  there  are 
two  in  the  Godhead,  of  equal  Divinity;  God  and 
Christ,  represented  as  two  ;  yet  essentially  one. 
But  if  there  are  two,  in  the  sense  explained  ;  no 
didiculty  is  increased  by  supposing  there  are  three 
in  the  Godhead.  In  this  point  of  light,  I  shall  con- 
siiier  all  the  ariiuments,  adduced  in  favor  of  the 
real  Deity  of  Christ,  and  of  his  distinction  from, 
and  yet  union  with  the  Father,  as  fulh^'in  point,  to 
prove  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  The  business 
of  this  section  therefore,  I  shall  view  as  in  a  great 
measure  accomplished,  by  that  of  the  section  on 
the  real  Divinity  of  Jesus  Christ.  I  shall  here  rest 
on  every  argument  there  adduced,  as  directly  in 
point. 

The  doctrine  of  a  Trinity  in  Unity  in  the  God* 
head,  rests  solely  on  divine  Revelation.  The  light 
of  nature  teaches  nothing  in  favor  of  it;  and  it 
can  teach  nothing  against  it.  This  is  a  doctrine 
above  our  reason  ;  and  above  all  that  we  can 
ascertain  from  the  analogy  of  creatures.  But  this 
doctrine  cannot  be  pronounced  contrary  to  reason. 
It  is  a  mystery,  but  can  never  be  shown  to  be  an 
absurdity,  that  there  should  be  in  some  sense  three 
in  one  undivided  Godhead.  It  is  not  pretended 
that  there  are  in  God  three  in  the  same  sense,  in 
which  there  is  one  ;  nor  one  in  the  same  sense,  in 
which  there  are  three.  But  there  are  in  some  im- 
portant sense  three  ;  yet  in  another  important 
sense,  the  three  are  one. 


136 

Trinitarians  have  often  enough  given  noticfl^ 
that  the  term  persons,  a>  understood  when  applied 
to  men.  fails  ofrjlly  answering  to  the  Three  in  the 
Godhead.  That  the  term  is  adopted,  because  they 
cau  tind  no  better.  But  that  thej  do  not  suppose 
the  Three  Persons  in  the  Godhead  to  be  so  per- 
fectly distinct  from  each  other,  as  are  different 
persons  among  men.  That  in  some  important  senec 
they  are  distinct  from  each  other  ;  while  yet  they 
are  really  one.  May  this  ever  be  remembered, 
when  the  term  persons  is  applied  to  the  Three  in 
the  Godhead. 

The  Bible  throughout  does  teach,  that  there  is 
something  in  the  mode  of  the  divine  existence, 
which  lays  a  foundation  for  the  one  God  to  speak 
of  himself  as  I,  thou,  and  he.  These  Three  have 
d'jTerent  names,  like  three  persons  ;  while  equal 
works,  names,  and  honors  of  pure  Divinity  are 
abundantly  ascribed  to  each.  This  fact  appears 
upon  the  face  of  the  Bible,  of  the  Old  and  New- 
Testaments.  If  it  appeared  in  but  one,  or  even 
several  solitary  passages,  it  might  possibly  be  said 
to  be  a  figurative  speech  ;  and  the  Trinitarian  sen- 
timent might  fail  of  support.  But  the  sentiment 
is  found  throughout  the  sacred  book. 

The  passages  which  indicate  a  plurality  in  the 
Godhead,  where  the  number  three  is  not  noted,  I 
shall  adduce  as  fully  in  point  to  prove  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity.  We  tind  a  plurality  in  God  in  tiie 
beginning  of  Genesis.  We  find  the  same  in  the 
last  chapter  of  the  Revelation.  And  we  find  it  all 
the  way  through  the  sacred  volume.  The  whole 
economy  of  grace  is  represented  as  resting  in  the 
hands  of  these  three  Persons,  in  mutual  concert ; 
one  covenanting  with  the  other  ;  and  each  having 
his  stipulated  part  in  the  vast  design  of  man's  sal- 
yation.     These  ditferent  Persons  speak  to,  and  of 


137 

each  other,  as  ofdilTcrent  Persons;  ascribing  to 
themselves,  and  to  each  other,  the  names  and  works 
of  God.  And  yet  they  often  assert,  or  teach,  that 
there  is  but  one  God."  "  The  Lord  thy  God  is 
one  God.''  '•  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods 
before  me."  "  Thou  shalt  vvrorship  the  Lord  thy 
God,  and  him  only  shalt  thou  serve."  Here  is 
perfect  Unity  in  the  Three. 

\  shall  now  adduce  some  arguments  in  favor  of 
this  plurality  in  the  Godhead,  and  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity.  The  word  Aleim,  or  Elohim,in 
Hebrew,  translated  God,  is  in  the  plural.  "  In  the 
beginning  Gods  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth." 
And  notwithstanding  all  that  Jews,  Arians,  Soci- 
nians,  and  infidels  say  to  the  contrary,  I  am  far 
from  being  convinced,  that  this  plurality  in  the 
name  of  God,  does  not  indicate  a  plurality  of  Per- 
sons in  the  Godhead.  Jewish  converts  (having 
given  up  their  enmity  against  the  Divinity  of  Jesus 
of  Nazareth)  have  viewed  this  plural  word  a  for- 
cible argument  in  favor  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Tri- 
nity. John  Xerese,  a  Jewish  convert  in  Britain^ 
wrote  an  excellent  address  to  his  countrymen,  upon 
this  subject.  And  in  his  first  aifgument  in  favor  of 
the  Trinity,  he  says  ;  "  Why  else  is  the  frequent 
mention  of  God,  by  names  of  the  plural  number  ? 
as  Gen.  i.  1,  where  the  word  Elohim,  which  is 
rendered  God,  is  of  the  plural  number,  though  an- 
nexed to  a  verb  of  the  singular  number  ;  which 
demonstrates,  as  far  as  may  be,  that  there  are 
several  Persons  partaking  of  the  same  divine  na- 
ture, or  essence."*  It  is  a  fact  that  we  find  much 
which  enforces  the  same  idea  of  this  converted 
Jew  ;  as  in  the  following  scriptures  : — "  And  God 
said.  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image,  after  our 
likeness."     "  The  man  is  become  as  one  of  us,  to 

*  Con.  Mag.  vol.  III.  pag.  24. 

i2* 


138 

know  good  alid  evil."     Pass  on,  to  different  parts 
of  the  Bible,  you  abundantly  tind  the  same.  "  Let 
us  go  down,  and  confound  their  language."  "  And 
the  Lord  God  said,  '•  Whom  shall  1  send,  and  who 
will  go    for  us  ?"     What  a  changing  of  persons  is 
bere  found  from  I,  to  us  !  as  the  beginning  of  Ge- 
nesis ;  "  Let  us  make  man."     "  I  have  given  you  . 
every   herb."     The  singular  and  the   plural   are 
thus  used   interchangeably.     There  is   Unity,  as 
well  as  Trinity,  and  Trinity,  as  well  as  Unity,  in 
God.     This  appears,  in  that  verbs,  pronouns,  and 
relatives,  united  to  plural  nouns   of  the  name  of 
God,  are  found  in  the  singular  number.     On  the 
contrary,  verbs  and  adjectives  relating  to  God  are 
often  found  in  the  plural.  As  Gen.  xx.  13  ;  "  And 
it  v^am.e  to  pass  when   God  caused  me  to  wander 
from  my  father's  house."  In  the  Hebrew  the  verb 
rendered  caused,  is  in  the  plural.  W  hen  God  they 
caused  me  to  wander.*  And  such  instances  are  de- 
clared by  ancient   critical  writers  to  relate  to  the 
mysterious  Trinity.  Gen.  xxv.  7,  "  Because  there 
God  appeared  unto  him  ;"  the  word  rendered  ap- ' 
peared,  in  the  original  is  plural  ; — God  they  ap- 
peared, or  were  revealed.     2  Sam.  vii.  23  ;  "  Is- 
rael, whom  God  went  to  redeem."    The  verb  here 
reiidered  went  in.  the  original  is  in  the  plural ;  God 
they  went  to  redeem.  Deut.  iv.  7;  "  What  nation 
is  there  so  great, that  hath  God  so  nigh  unto  them  ?" 
The  adjective  here  rendered  nigh,  ii*  plural  in  the 
Hebrew.     God,  who  are  so  near.    Josh.  xxiv.  1 9  ; 
*' He  is  a  holy  God."     In  the  Hebrew,  the  word 
rendered   holy  is  plural.     He  is  a  God,  who   are 
holy  ;  or  holy  ones.    Psalm  Iviii.  11;"  Verily  he 
is  a  God  that  judgeth  in  the  earth."     In  the  He- 
brew the  word  rendered  judgeth  is  plural. — A  God, 
who  are  judging  in  the  earth. 

*  gee  Jones,  page  87. 


139 

Mai.  i.  6  ;  "  If  I  be  a  Master,  where  is  my 
fear."  la  the  Hebrew  it  is,  '•  If  I  be  Masters — ." 
Isai.  liv.  5;  **  For  thy  Maker  is  thine  hu>baiid." 
In  the  Hebrew  both  are  plural  ;  Makers,  and  hus- 
bands. The  Flebrew  word  for  iVIaker.  in  Isai.  li, 
13,  is  used  in  the  sini^iiiar ;  ''And  for^^etest  the 
Lord  thy  Maker."  Thus  sometimes  God  is  our 
Maker,  and  sometimes  our  Makers.  Eccle.  xii. 
1  ;  ^*  Remember  now  thy  Creator — ."  In  the- 
Hebrew  it  is  plural.  Creators.  Adjectives  deno- 
ting some  divine  attribute,  and  standing  for  the 
name-  of  God,  are  often  found  in  the  plural.  Prov. 
ix.  10;  "  The  knowledge  of  the  Holy,  is  under- 
standing." The  word  Holy  here  is  plural  in  the 
Hebrew  ; — the  Holy  Ones.  The  same  occurs  in 
Prov.  XXX.  3  ;  "  I  neither  learned  wisdom,  nor 
have  the  knowledge  of  the  Holy."  Hebrew,  Ho- 
ly Ones.  In  Eccle,  v.  3,  where  God  is  called 
Higher  than  they  ;  (oppressors)  the  word  render- 
ed Higher  is  in  the  plural. 

In  Dan.  iv.  relative  to  Nebuchadnezzar's  great 
tree,  God  is  repeatedly  spoken  of  in  the  plural. 
"  This  matter  is  by  the  decree  of  the  Watchers, 
and  the  demand  by  the  word  of  the  Holy  Ones." 
"  They  commanded  to  leave  the  stump  of  the  tree 
roots—."  In  chapter  v.  18,  the  Most  High  God 
gave  Nebuchadnezzar  a  kingdom  and  glory.  And 
in  verse  ,20,  "  They  took  his  glory  from  him  ;" 
they,  i.  e.  the  Mo?.t  High  God  ;  or  the  Persons  in 
the  Godhead. 

This  plurality  in  God,  accounts  for  that  oftea 
and  abundant  changing  of  persons,  in  the  same 
sentence,  relative  to  God,  which  we  find  through 
the  Old  Testament ;  like  the  following  ;  ''  When 
the  Lord  hath  performed  his  whole  work  upon 
Mount  Zion,  1  (not  he)  will  punish  the  fruit  of  the 
stoat  hoart  of  the  king  of  Assyria,"     Here  are 


140 

the  tljlrd  and  first  persons,  in  the  same  sentence^ 
relative  to  God.  '•  I  will  shake  the  heavens,  and 
the  earth  shall  remove  out  of  her  place,  in  the 
wrath  of  the  Lord  of  hosts  in  the  day  of  his  (not 
my)  tierce  anger."  "  I  will  drive  thee  from  thy 
station,  and  from  thy  state  shall  he  (not  I)  pull 
thee  down."  "  Neither  hath  the  eye  seen,  O 
God,  beside  thee,  what  he  (not  thou)  hath  prepar- 
ed for  him  that  waiteth  foi*  him."  Such  instances 
are  numerous.  And  they  perfectly  accord  with  a 
plurality  of  Persons  in  God  :  but  would  be  unac- 
countable upon  any  other  principle. 

It  is  said  by  a  great  writer,  that  God  is  spoken 
of,  in  the  plural  number,  more  than  en  hundred 
times,  in  the  Bible.  This  most  clearly  favors  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  And  pronouns,  relatives 
and  verbs  being  in  the  singular  number,  when  con- 
nected with  these  plural  nouns,  forcibly  teaches 
the  unity  of  the  Trinity  ;  that  while  they  are  per- 
sonally Three,  they  are  essentially  One. 

It  by  no  means  tbilovrs.  that  if  there  be  Three 
in  one  God,  the  neuter  pronoun  it  may  be  applied 
to  God  ;  because  it  is  applied  to  a  human  triumvi- 
rate, or  a  council.  Some  have  imagined,  that  be- 
cause we  say  of  a  council.  When  will  it  sit  ?  or 
when  will  it  rise  ?  So  if  God  consist  of  a  Trinity 
of  Persons,  the  same  language  must  be  able  equal- 
ly to  apply  to  him  ;  as.  It  is  omniscient ;  i.  e.  God 
is  omniscient.  Ar.d  because  this  neuter  pronoun 
does  not  apply  to  God,  as  it  does  to  a  council ;. 
therefore  God  cannot  consist  of  different  Persons. 
But  this  deduction  is  incorrect.  For  the  mem- 
bers of  a  council  of  three,  are  not  one  in  the  sense 
in  which  tlie  Three  in  the  Godhead  are  one. 
Neither  are  the  Persons  of  the  Godhead  three,  in 
that  full  sense,  in  which  the  members  of  such  a 
council  are  independently  three.     Such  reasoning 


141 

then,  rrom  a  council  to  the  Trinity,  fails.  And 
it  does  not  follow,  that  because  the  neuter  pro- 
noun it  cannot  properly  be  applied  to  the  Trinity, 
that  therefore  there  is  no  Trinity  of  equal  Persons 
in  the  Godhead.     Such  objections  are  fallacious. 

The  tcrmGodhead  being  repeatedly  used, instead 
of  the  word  God,  has  with  me  the  weight  of  ait  ar- 
g'ln^ent,  in  favor  oi  the  doctrine  of  the  Twnity. 
Wi\y  should  it  be  so  used,  unless  to  indicate  a  plu- 
rality of  Persons  in  God  ?  Should  we  not  con- 
ceive, that  the  word  Tiieos,  God,  would  be  more' 
proper  to  have  been  uniformly  used,  than  to  have 
Theiotees,  Godhead,  introduced,  if  God  consisted 
of  but  one  Person  ?  It  seems  the  Assembly  of  Di- 
vines at  Vv^estminster,  conceived  there  was  some 
weight  in  this  argument.  They  therefore  say, 
*'  How  many  Persons  are  there  in  the  Godhead  ? 
There  are  three  Persons  in  the  Godhead,  the  Fa- 
ther, Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  and  these  three  are 
one  God,  the  same  in  substance,  equal  in  power 
and  in  glory. 

Very  early  in  the  Bible,  we  find  who  these 
Three  in  the  Godhead  are  ;  their  number  ;  and 
their  names  :  They  are  God,  the  Spirit  of  the 
Lord  and  the  Person  predicted  to  appear  as  the 
woman's  Seed.  These  three  are  found,  under 
dilferent  names,  through  the  Bible.  In  the  last 
c  .apter  of  Revelation,  they  are  "  God,  the  Lamb, 
aid  the  Spirit.''  In  innumerable  passages  they  are, 
the  Father,  Son,  aru!  I^Io  y  Ghost  •,  the  Father, 
tho  Word  and  the  Holy  Ghost;  God,  Christ,  and 
the  (Comforter.  Thus  under  diiferent  names  they 
are  kuown.  They  are  spoken  to,  and  spoken  of, 
as  Three  ;  yet  each  really  God  :  and  each  the  on- 
ly God  ;  So  that  they  are  not  three  Gods,  but  one 
God* 


142 

Read  the  divine  commission  of  baptism.  ^'Bap- 
trzing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.''  Is  not  this  calcu- 
lated to  evince  that  there  are  indeed  three  divine 
Persons  in  the  Godhead  ?  Why  are  the  subjects 
of  baptism,  in  this  standing,  sealing  ordinance  of 
God's  kingdom,  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Fa- 
ther, and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  if 
there  be  not  these  three  divine  Persons  in  the 
Godhead  ?  This  commission  of  baptism  is  indeed 
calculated  to  condrm  this  doctrine.  The  name  is 
one  ;  the  Persons  possessing  it  are  three  ;  "  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 'Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.''  Who  can  say,  that  here  is  not  a 
Trinity  of  equal  Persons  in  one  God  ? 

The  same  Trinity  we  find  in  the  apostolic  bene- 
diction. "  The  ^race  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  the  love  of  God,  and  the  communion  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  be  u'ith  you  all.  Amen.''  AVho  are 
the  Three  here  found  ?  Can  it  be  admitted,  that 
one  of  them,  viz.  the  second  mentioned,  is  the 
one  only  Person  of  the  living  God  ;  another,  viz. 
the  first  mentioned,  is  a  totally  distinct  Being,  a 
derived,  and  a  constituted  God  ;  and  the  third  is  st 
Person  ordy  in  figure  ?  The  real  God  ;  a  real 
creature  ;  and  a  nonentity,  or  the  energy  of  God 
personified  !  Is  this  the  Trinity,  or  the  Godhead, 
of  whom  the  church  have  read  in  their  Bibles 
from  ancient  date  ?  What  is  there  mysterious  in 
such  a  Trinity  ?  Is  it  not  the  easiest  idea  concern- 
ing God  imaginable  ?  Does  it  not  appear  like 
having  "by  searching  found  out  God?"  Why 
then  should  Christ  any  longer  be  called  Wonder- 
ful ?  or  be  said  to  have  a  name  which  no  man 
knoweth  but  himself?"  Rev.  xix.  12.  Why 
should  it  any  longer  stand  in  our  Bible,  that 
"  Without  controversy,  great  is  the  mystery  of  god- 


143. 

llness  ;  God  was  manifest  in  the  flesh?"  And 
why  may  we  not  presume  to  brin^  every  thing,  rel- 
ative to  God,  down  to  the  level  pf  our  own  con- 
ceptions ?  "  Vam  man  would  be  wise,  liiough  man 
be  born  like  a  wild  ass's  coit." 

In  1  John,  V,  7,  8,  we  have  the  doctrine,  of  the 
Trinity  in  unity  of  the  Godiiead,  clearly  ascertain- 
ed. "  For  there  are  three,  that  bear  record  in 
heaven,  the  Father,  the  vVord^  a»id  the  Holy  Ghost; 
and  these  three  are  one.  And  tliere  are  iliree  tnat 
bear  witness  on  earth  ;  the  Spirit,  the  water  and 
the  blood  ;  and  these  three  a^rce  in  one.''  if  we 
be  wiihng  that  God  should  decide  this  point,  and 
wiihng  to  abide  his  decision  j  it  ceriainiy  appears 
here  to  be  decided,  in  language  the  most  positive.* 

*  I  am  not  insensible,  that  the  authenticity  of  this  first  verse, 
relative  to  the  three  heavenly  witnesses,  is  by  some  called  in 
question  ;  it  beuig  wanting  in  numbers  of  ancient  Greek  man- 
uscripts. As  our  opponents  have  ti'iumphed  in  the  supposition 
of  their  having  proved  the  want  of  authenticity  in  this  text; 
and  as  I  believe  m  its  authenticity;  I  must  be  excused  in  the 
length  of  this  note,  in  exhibitiu;^  llie  grounds  cf  my  confidence, 
that  this  text  was  in  the  original  Epistle  of  St.  John. 

1.  This  verse  is  found  in  the  Latin  fathers,  of  an  early  date  ; 
as  we  learn  m  Panoplist  for  May,  lull,  page  334.  The  Latin 
■was  the  language  of  the  Romans,  the  masters  of  the  world,  at 
the  commencement  of  the  Christian  era.  In  the  third  century, 
(a  much  earlier  date  than  were  any  ©f  the  proseat  GreeK  MtS. 
Written)  reference  is  found,  in  the  writings  of  the  uoted  Cyprian, 
to  this  verse.  la  the  fiuh  ceuuiry,  quotations  are  made  from  it  by 
Fulgqntius,  and  the  authors  of  the  African  Confession.  In  the 
sixth  century,  Cassiodorus  makes  use  of  this  text :  And  in  the 
eighth,  Elhenus,  and  Beatus.  Where  did  theso  early  fathors 
find  this  text,  if  not  in  the  writings  of  St.  John  ?  Cyi^rian  suf- 
fered martyrdom,  a  little  after  the  middle  of  (he  third  cen- 
tury, under  Valerian.  Ue  began  his  public  ministry,  not  much 
more  than  a  <ieatury  after  the  death  of  St.  John.  Dd  he  not 
know  the  writings  of  this*  apostle.^  And  could  suoh  a  man  as 
Cyprian  add,  or  diminish,  and  this  too  relative  to  so  material  a 
point,  in  the  word  of  God  :  There  were  adversaries  enough 
to  this  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  to  have  detected  such  an  inter- 
polation, h»d  Cyprian*  or  any  man  been  disposed  perversely  t« 


144 

Relative  to  these  heavenly  witnesses,  we  read ; 
John  viii.  17, — "  It  is  also  written  in  your  law, 
that  the  testimonies  of  two  men  is  true."     Christ 

insert  this  text.  '  After  the  noted  Arius  of  the  fourth  century 
arose,  denyiug  the  Trinity,  and  the  divinity  oi  Christ,  had  Ful- 
geutius,  and  the  authors  oi  the  African  Couiession,  quoted  thi« 
text  without  proper  authority,  it  would  have  been  ascertained, 
and  C' ndemned.  The  silence  of  the  A  nans  upon  this  point, 
implie'-,  that  they  could  not  controvert  the  authenticity  ol  the 
quotauou. 

Further.     In  a  letter  from  the  accomplished  scholar  (.  ht  ries 
Butler,  Esq.  (m  the  second  volume  of  his  HorfE  Bibiicfe)  lo  Dr. 
Marsh,  is  contained  evidence,  of  vast  weight,   relative  to  thi 
point.     The  letter  is  given  in  the   aforementioned  Panoplist. 
I  wiU  here  insert  it. 

**  TO  THE  REV.  HERBERT  MARSH. 

Dear  Sir — ^Vhen  I  had  last  the  pleasure  of  your  company, 
I  mentioned  to  you  that  I  thought  the  argument  in  iavorol  the 
ver?e  of  The  Three  Heavenly  Witnesses,  or  1  John,  chap.  5.  v. 
7,  from  the  Couiession  of  Faith  presented  by  the  Catholic  Bish- 
ops to  HnnerxC  in  484,  had  not  been  sufficiently  attended  to  : 
I  now  beg  leave  to  trouble  you  with  my  thonghis  upon  it.  I 
shail  first  copy  Mr.  Archdeacon  Travis's  account  of  it,  from  his 
leiters  to  Mr.  Gibbon,  3d  edit.  p.  57. 

'  In  A.  D.  484,  an  assembly  of  African  Bishops  was  convened 
at  Carthage  by  King  Huneric  the  Vandal  and  the  Arian.  The 
style  of  the  edict,  issued  by  Huneric  on  this  occasion,  seems 
worthy  of  notice.  He  th(rein  requires  the  orthodox  Bishops 
of  his  dominions  to  attend  the  council  thus  convened,  there  to 
defend  hy  the  Scriptures  the  consubstauliality  of  the  Son  w.th 
the  Father,  against  certain  Anan  opponents.  At  the  time  ap- 
pointed, nearly  four  hundred  bishops  attended  this  counc;\  from 
the  various  provinces  of  Atr:ca,  and  from  the  isles  of  the  Medi- 
trrri^nean  sea  ;  at  the  head  of  whom  stood  the  veneraVle  Eu- 
gemus,  bishop  of  Carthage.  The  public  professions  of  Hune- 
vic  promised  a  fair  aud  candid  discussion  of  the  Divinity  of  Je- 
sus Christ;  but  it  soon  apjieared  that  his  private  intentif  ns 
■were  to  com,  el,  by  force,  the  vindicator^  of  that  belief  to  sub- 
mit u.  the  tenets  of  Ar;anism.  For  when  Eugenius,  with  his 
ant?- Arian  prelates,  entered  the  room  of  consultatioi,,  they 
ft;und  Cyrila,  their  chief  antagonist,  seated  on  a  kind  of  throne, 
at^en.Ud  by  his  Aria.j  coadjutors,  and  surrounded  by  armed 
EPt) ;  who  qu'ckly,  instead  of  waiting  to  hear  the  reasonings  of 
Uieir  opponents,  offered  violeuce  to  their  persons.     Conri^iced 


145 

then  proceeds  to  adduce  two  witnesses, — the  num- 
ber demanded  in  their  law.  "  I  am  one,  that  bear 
witness   of  myself  \  and  the  Father  that  sent  me 

by  this  application  offeree  that  no  deference  would  be  paid  to 
argunien',  Evigcniu*  and  his  prelates  wiihUrew  from  the  coun- 
cil-room ;  but  not  without  leaving  behind  them  a  protest,  in 
which,  (among  other  passages  of  Scripture)  this  verse  of  St. 
John  1=  th'.is  especially  insisted  upon,  in  vindication  of  the  be- 
lief to  which  tliey  adhered.- T/ir//  it  may  appear  more  clear  Di an 
the  light,  that  the  Divinity  of  the  Father.,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  one.,  see  it  proved  by  the  Eva?igelist  St.  John.,uho  irrites 
thus:  TJiere  are  three  vhich  bear  record  in  heaven,  the  Father, 
the  JFord,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  these  tliree  are  one. 

This  remarkable  fact  appears  to  be  alone  amply  decisive  as 
to  the  originality  of  the  Verse  in  question.  The  manner  in 
which  it  happened  seems  to  carry  irresistible  conviction  with  it. 
It  was  not  a  thing  done  in  a  corner,  a  transaction  of  solitude 
or  obscurity.  It  passed  in  the  metropolis  of  the  kingdom,  in 
the  court  of  the  reigning  prince,  in  the  face  of  opponents,  exas- 
perated by  controversy,  and  proud  of  royal  support,  and  in  the 
presence  of  the  whole  congregated  African  church.  Nor  is 
the  time,  when  this  transaction  happened,  less  powerfully  con- 
vincing thaii  its  manner.  Not  much  more  than  three  centuries 
had  elapsed  from  the  death  of  St.  John,  when  this  solemn  ap- 
peal was  thus  made  to  the  authority  of  This  Verse.  Had  the 
Verse  been  forged  by  Eugenius  and  his  bishops,  all  Christian 
Airica  would  have  exclaimed  at  once  against  them.  Had  it 
even  been  considered  as  of  doubtful  original,  their  adversaries 
the  Arians,  thus  publicly  attacked  by  this  protest,  would  have 
loudly  challenged  the  authenticity  of  the  Verse,  and  would 
have  refused  to  be  in  any  respect  concluded  by  its  evidence. 
But  nothing  of  this  kind  intervened.  Cyrila  and  his  asso- 
ciates received  its  testimony  in  sullen  silence  ;  and  by  that  si- 
lence admitted  it  to  have  proceeded  from  the  pen  of  St.  John/* 
With  great  respect,  dear  Sir,  I  am.  Sec. 

CHARLES  BUTLER. 
January  7,  1806." 

The  transaction  here  related  by  Mr.  Travis,  was  at  an  ear* 
lier  date,  than  was  the  writing  of  any  Greek  MSS.  of  the  New 
Testament  now  extant.  For  none  of  them  are,  by  the  best 
judges,  carried  back  to  the  fifth  century  That  transaction 
thea,  must  give  more  weight  of  evidence  in  favor  of  the  divine 

*  For  the  remaining  part  of  theletter,see  Panoplist,  volume 
iiL  New  Series,  page  540. 
13 


146 

beareth  witness  of  me."  But  the  third  witness 
from  the  same  source  is  furnished  ;  1  John,  v.  6  ; 
**  It  is  the  Spirit,  that  beareth  witness."     Here 

authority  of  this  text,  than  its  having  been  uropjed  out  of 
tho;e  Greek  MSS.  can  be,  of  evidence  against  it.  Jerome  as- 
serts, that  he  found  how  this  text  had  been  omitted,  on  pur- 
pose to  elude  the  truth,     (ifee  Jones,  p.  103.) 

2.  Another  weighty  arg-ument  in  favor  of  the  genuineness  of 
this  text,  loliows,  in  the  same  Fanophst,  from  1'.  F.  Middleton, 
in  his  masterly  Essay  on  the  Greek  arlicle,  lo  this,  the  read- 
er is  referred.  (Panoj  list  tor  May,  IJJll.  pJ-ge  541.)  '1  he  re- 
sult of  the  argument  is  this  ;  that  tlie  coiistruclicn  ol  the 
Gseek.  or  the  use  of  the  ar'irlc  7 6,  lelore  the  word  Act?,  one^ 
ir.  the  iud  of  1  John,  v.  8,  (the  \crsc  succeeding  the  disputed 
text,  and  Avhich  is  found  in  the  Greek  MSS.)  res's  on,  or  alludes 
to  the  preceding,  or  disputed  text;  and  thus  proves  its  having 
been  iv;  tiic  original  writing  of  John. — •'■  And  these  three  agree 
in  (/o  hai)  the  one.''''  What  one  .^  The  one  in  the  preceding 
verse,  v.'h.ch  the  Three  in  heaven  constituLe.  hideed  tlie  read- 
ing in  the  second  of  these  verses,  setrns  clearly  to  imply  the  au- 
thenticity of  the  first.  lis  phraseology  rests  upi^n  it;  as  may 
be  seen  l:'y  comjiaring  them. 

3.  INliicknight,  in  his  translation,  says,  that  seme  of  the  most 
ancient  aiid  correct  Vatican  Greek  copies  have  this  verse.  All 
Stephen's  MSS.  seven  in  number,  and  which  contain  llio 
whole  epistles,  have  this  verse.  7  he  Vulgate  version,  (he  in- 
forms) in  most  of  the  MSS.  a.d  the  printed  editions,  have  it. 
lie  notes  the  testimony  of  T  ertullian,  m  lin  or  oi  this  verse, 
who  lived  m  an  age,  in  which  the  authentic  writings  ol  tije 
apostles  were  read  in  the  churclies  ;  This  whs  m  the  second 
century.  The  Doctor  likewise  notes  the  testimciny  of  Cyprian, 
in  the  third  century,  expressly  quoting  the  latter  part  ol  this 
verse,  in  his  episiie  to  Jubajanus.  Docttr  JNlacki.ighl  also 
mentions  the  testimony  oi  many  Greek  and  Latin  lathers,  in 
following  ages,  some  ol  whom,  he  says,  appealed  tjo  the  Arians 
theinsflves,  as  allov.ing  the  authenticity  vi  this  text.  Mill 
therefore,  (he  adds,)  was  decidedly  of  opinion,  that  in  what- 
ever manner  this  verse  di  appeared  in  many  Greek  MSS.  it  un- 
-^loubtedly  was  in  St.  Jc-hn's  auti  graph,  or  original  epistle  ;  and 
in  some  of  the  copies  transcribed  from  it. 

4.  How  much  more  natural  and  easy  i.?  it,  to  suppose  tl  at 
this  verse  was,  at  an  early  period,  omitted  through  mistake,  or 
*in  s(  me  way  by  a  Greek  trans*  riber,  and  in  this  way  to  have 
became  lost  from  many  Greek  ?.^SS.  than  to  conceive  of  its 
being  interpolated,  and  receive(!  by  thousands,  (not  only  of 
friends,  but  enemies  to  its  sefltiment.)  »£  of  divine   authority* 


U7 

a^a'm  &re  the  Three,  who  bear  record  in  heaveu. 
Christ  aliutlei  to  then,  when  ha  says  ;  ^  We  &peak 
that  we  do  kdovv,  and  testify  that  we  have  seen  : 
and  ye  receive  not  our  witness. *' 

T!io  latter  iapposjtioa  is  atteadeJ  with  great  Jiificulties  :  The 
£ji-.n?r  vvitfi  cLrficulties  comparatively  spiall. 

5.  Theseaiimeal  of  the  text  acjii^ih  with  that  of  the  whole 
Bible.  The  text  coulaia?  no  novel  ssatiincnt,  and  nothing:  oi 
a  lo  iblfil  nature.  It  uidv  be  viewe-.!  as  a  doctrine,  which  re- 
sults from*  the  general  language,  a:id  scheme,  of  fheA;icred  Or- 
acles. The  acquisition  of  the  opponents  then,  should  they 
lake  away  this  text,  would  be  only  like  taking  a  bucket  qt 
water  from  a  stream ;  when  the  fountain  is  flowing,  to  fill  ali 
up  again. 

6.  In  an  appendix,  to  the  Essay  on  the  real  Deity  of  Jesus 
Christ,  by  the  Rev.  C.  Alexander,  we  find  seven  or  eight  octavo 
pages  filled  with  evidence,  in  favor  of  the  authenticity  of  this 
text  ;  mach  of  which  is  taken  from  works  of  the  learned  Rev. 
George  Travis.  He  gives  considerable  of  the  evidence  already 
mentioned  in  this  note  ;  and  much  in  addition.  To  that  ap- 
pendix, the  reader  is  referred.  I  will  just  advert  to  some  of 
the  most  interesting  parts  of  this  additional  evidence.  Mr.  A. 
find?  tlvis  text  viewed  as  authentic,  by  good  authorities,  in  the 
fojrteenth,  thirteenth,  twelfth,  eleventh,  ninth,  eighth,  sixth, 
fifth,  fourth,  third,  and  second  centuries.  Jn  the  eighth  cen- 
tury, the  emperor  Charlemagne  convened  the  learned  of  the 
age,  to  revise  the  MSS.  of  the  Bible.  He  furisished  the  com- 
miisioners  with  every  MS.  which  could  be  procured,  through 
his  extensive  empire.  The  result  of  their  labors  they  present- 
ed to  the  emperor.  There  this  text  is  found,  without  the  least 
intimation  that  there  was  any  doubt  of  its  authenticity.  The 
pious  and  learned  Jerome,  at  the  request  of  the  bishop  of  Rome, 
performed  the  arduous  work  of  revising  the  MSS.  of  the  Old 
aaJ  New  Testameuts.  He  closed  the  work,  A.  D.  420  ;  with 
the  solemn  protestation,  that  in  revising  the  New  Te?raBient, 
he  liad  adhered  entiriily  to  the  Greek  MS?.  And  in  Jernme''s 
Testament  this  verse  of  St.  John  is  found,  and  no  hint  of  its 
being  dubious.  What  better  evidence  can  we  wish,  than  this 
of  St.  Jprume.' 

Augustine,  of  the  same  age,  in  his  commentary  on  this  chapi- 
tor  of  St.  John,  has  these  expressions,  "The  Father,  and  the 
Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  are  one."  CyriHus,  in  his  exposition 
of  faith,  makes  iiie  of  this  text.  Phnebadius,  a  bishop  in  France, 
i«  the  fourth  century,  cites  this  Verse,  xn  his  book  agaiust  the 
Arians. 


l48 

The  personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is,  hy  sohi^, 
4enied.  They  say,  the  fulness  of  God,  or  the  di- 
vine eriergy,  is  in  the  scriptures  personified.  But 
they  contend,  that  we%re  not  to  conceive  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  as  having  any  distinct  personality.  It 
is  only  the  fulness  and  energy  of  the  one  Person  in 
God  personified. 

Reply,  That  we  are  taught  to  conceive  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  as  a  Person,  while  yet  he  is  one  with 
God,  appears  evident.  His  being  repeatedly  class- 
ed with  the  other  two  in  the  Godhead,  who,  it  has 
been  shown,  are  represented  as  distinct  Persons, 
seems  clearly  to  imply,  that  he  also  is  a  distinct 
Person,  as  much  as  is  the  Father,  or  the  Son.  Con- 
sider the  three  names  in  the  commission  of  bap- 
tism ;  in  the  benediction  ;  in  the  three  heavenly 
witnesses  ;  and  in  other  Scriptures  ;  and  say,  are 
we  not  here  taught  to  believe,  that  the  last  one 
mentioned  is  as  real  a  Person,  as  is  either  of  the 
others  ?    What  right  have  we  to  conceive,  that  the 

In  this  appenJi;s  of  Mr.  Alexander,  is  the  following;,  result- 
ing from  his  author  :  "  The  most  aneient  of  all  the  versions  of 
ihe  books  of  the  New  Testament,  from  the  books,  in  which 
4hey  were  originally  written,  is  the  OIJ  Ilalic.  (v.bere  this  text 
is  found.)  This  version  was  made  in  the  first  century,  and 
therefore  whilst  St.  John  was  yet  alive;  and  was  used  by  the 
Latin  churches,  in  Europe,  Asia,  and  Africa,  for  many  centu- 
ries after  his  death.  And  thus  the  origin  of  the  verse  in  ques- 
tion is,  at  length,  carried  up,  not  by  inferences  or  implications 
alone,  (however  fair  and  obvious,)  but  by  plain  and  positive 
evidence,  to  the  age  of  St.  John  himself.  For  this  most  valu- 
able, as  well  as  most  ancient  version  has  constantly  exhibited 
tliis  verse,  1  John,  v.  7.  Throughout  the  vast  series  of  one 
thousand,  four  hundred  years, — between  the  days  of  Praxiijs, 
and  the  age  of  Erasmus,  not  a  single  author,  whether  Patri- 
passian,  Cerinihian,  Ebionite,  Arian,  Macedonian,  or  Sabellian ; 
whether  of  the  Greek,  or  Latin  ;  whether  of  the  eastern,  or 
western  church  ;  whether  in  Asia,  Africa,  or  Europe, — hath 
ever  taxed  the  various  quotations  of  this  verse,  with  interpola- 
tion, or  forgery."  For  myself,  I  shall  henceforth  rest  satisfied 
"^ith  the  divine  authority  of  this  text. 


149 

two  first  are  Persons  ;  and  the  last  is  a  Persoft 
oaly  in  figure  ?  How  unequal  a  Trinity !  Where 
has  man  a  warrant  for  such  a  conception  ? 

If  the  Holy  Ghost  have  nothing  of  distinct  per- 
sonaHty,  why  has  he  an  appropriate  name  distinct 
from  God  ?  Wiiy  has  he  titles,  which  import  dis« 
tinct  personaHty,  and  which  are  not  given  to  the 
others  in  the  Godhead  ?  such  as,  the  Spirit  ;  the 
Spirit  of  the  Lord  ;  the  holy  Spirit  ;  the  Comfor- 
ter. And  why  does  this  representation  run  through 
the  Bible  ?  With  all  the  numerous  scriptures, 
which  are  calculated  to  excite  a  belief  in  the  per- 
sonality of  the  Holy  Ghost,  we  have  not  a  word  of 
caution  against  believing  in  such  a  personality.  If 
it  be  unsafe  to  believe  in  a  distinct  personality  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  w^hy  have  we  not  in  some  part  of 
the  sacred  Book,  at  least  one  hint  against  it  : 
when  there  is  so  much,  calculated  to  induce  a  be- 
lief in  favor  of  it.  Is  the  Bible  itself  calculated  to 
deceive  man,  in  points  so  material  ? 

The  Gospel  is  called  "  the  ministration  of  the 
Spirit.''  Why  is  it  so  called,  if  there  be  no  Spirit, 
in  any  sense  distinct  from  the  Father  ?  It  is  the 
promise  of  our  heavenly  Father,  to  give  the  Holy 
Spirit  to  them,  that  ask  him.  Christians  are  born 
of  the  Spirit.  To  Mary  it  was  said,  "  The  Holy 
Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee." — It  was  revealed  to 
Simeon  (hupo)  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  he  should 
not  die,  till  he  ijad  seen  Christ.  Christ  was  led 
up  (hupo)  by  the  Spirit  to  be  tempted  of  the  devil. 
Christ  promised  his  disciples,  "  I  will  pray  the  Fa- 
ther, and  he  shall  give  you  another  Comforter,  that 
he  may  abide  with  you  for  ever  ;  even  the  Spirit  of 
truth."  Why  does  Christ  call  him  "  another  Com- 
forter ?"  The  divine  Saviour  here  ranks  the  Spirit 
with  himself,  who  was  then  their  Comforter.  Is 
fhs  Spirit  then,  no  Person  ?  Christ  adds  ;  "  Tfte 
13* 


150 

Comforter,  who  is  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  the  Fa- 
ther will  send  in  my  name,  (ekeinos)  Ae,  (not  ekei- 
non  it)  shall   teach  you  all   things,  and    bring  all 
things  to  your   remembrance,  whatsoever   I  have 
said  unto  you."      '  When  the  Comforter  is  come, 
(hon)  whom  I  will  send  unto  you  from  the  Father, 
even  the  Spirit  of  truth,  which  proceedeth  forth 
from  the  Father,  (ekeinos)  he  shall  testify  of  me." 
Is  not  the  Holy  Ghost  h.ere  represented  as  n  Per- 
son ?     Who  knows  then,  that  he  is  not  a  Person? 
''  If  I  go  not  away,  the  Comforter  will    not  come 
onto  you  ;  but  if  I  depart,  I  will  send  (auton)  him 
unto  you.     And   when  (ekeinos)  he  is  come,  he 
will  reprove  the  world  of  sin,  and  of  righteousness, 
and  of  judgment."     Here  is  the  Agent,  who  con- 
victs, and  converts.     "  When  he,  the   Spirit   of 
truth,  is  come,  he  will  guide  you  into  all  truth  ;  for 
fee  shall  not  speak  of  himself;  but  whatsoever  he 
shall  hear,  that  shall  he  spaak  ;  and  lie  will  show 
yoM   things  to  coine. — He  shall  take  of  mine,  and 
shew   it  unto  you.     He  shall  glorify  me  ;  for,  he 
shall  receive  of  mine,  and  shall  shew  it  unto  you."'^ 
Who  can  deny,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  here  repre- 
sented as  an   Asent,  personally  distinct   from   the 
Father  and  Chrigt  ?  And  this  is  not  found  in  a  tigu- 
rative  part  of  the   word  of  God  ;  but  in  the  most 
Kterai  and  gracious  promises. 

Some  have  said,  that  inasmuch  as  the  neutep 
pronoun  if  is  sometimes  applied  tothcHoly  Ghost; 
we  are  hence  taug}»t,  thiLt  he  is  not  a  Person,  but 
a  mere  thing. 

Reply,  Critics  in  the  Greek  well  know,  that 
fiiere  is  no  weight  in  this  objection.  The  use  of 
the  pronoun  it,  is  a  mcFC  matter  of  grommar.  The 
noun,  which  the  old  Grecian  beatheas  applied  ip 

*■  Jffhn  xiv,  XV.  and  xvi\. 


151 

spirit,  is  of  a  neuter  gender  :  Not  because  they 
supposed   spirits   have   not  distinct   personahtits. 
But  such  was  the  idiom  of  their  language  ;  or  their 
notion  in  this  thing.     And  in  the  inspired  writings 
of  the  New   Testament  in  Greek,  lang-iage-  was 
adopted,  as  it  was  found.     No  new  language    was 
invented.     A  babe,  in  the  Greek  language,  is  ex- 
pressed by  a  neuter  noun  ; — to  brtphos.     A  youth 
also  is  thus  expressed  ; — to  poAciion,     And   even 
the  children  of  God  are  known  by  a  ner.ter  noun 
and    article  ; — ta  tekna   ton    Theou.     Are   babes, 
youth,  and  the  children  of  God,  not  persons,  but 
things  ?     The   word  pneurna,  of  neuter    gender, 
which  the  Greeks  used  to  denote  spirit,  is  adopted 
by  the  inspired  vv'riters,  to  signify  any  spirit,  wheth- 
er the  Holy  Spirit,  or  spirits  of  angels,  or  of  men. 
•'  Believe  not  every  spirit — Many  Ailse  prophets 
are  gone  out  into  the  world.     Herc!)y  know  ye 
the  Spirit  of  God.     Every  spirit  that  confesseth 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  llcsh.   is  of  God. 
And  every  spirit,   that  coiifesscth   not   that  Jesus 
Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh,  is  not  of  God."     Were 
the  false  teachers,  here  referred  to,  or  the  spirit  of 
the  wicked  one,  which  governs  them,  of  neuter 
gender?     Must  we  conclude   that  they  v>-ere  not 
persons,  but  things,  because  they  are  expressed  by 
the   word  pneum-a.  a  neuter  noun  ?     This  word, 
rendered  spirit,  is  the  same,  which  is  applied  to 
the  Holy  Spirit.     And  if  it  indicate,  that  the  Ho- 
ly Spirit  is  not  a  Person  ;  it  equally  indicates,  that 
neither  angels  nor  men  are  persors  ;  for  it  is  ap- 
plied to  them,  as  well  as  to  the  Holy  Ghost.  Yea, 
it  equally  indicates  that  God  has  no  personality. 
For  we  read  "  God  is  a  Spirit,',]  pneuma  ; — the 
same  neuter  word,  in  the  original.  The  dying  Ste- 
phen  said,  "  Lord 'Jesus  receive  {to  pneuma  man) 
my  spirit;" — ia the  neuter  gender,  both  article^- 


152- 

aVid  noun.  Does  inspiration  mean  to  teach  here, 
that  Stephen  was  not  a  person,  but  a  mere  thing  ? 
The  inspired  writers  would  use  good  grammar. 
If  the  noun  were  neuter,  though  expressing  a  per- 
son, the  pronoun  and  relative,  answering  to  it, 
must  also  be  neuter.  But  every  Greek  scholar 
knows,  that  this  affords  not  the  least  argument 
against  the  real  Personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
But  it  was  esteemed  by  President  Edwards,  (as 
well  as  by  many  others)  an  unhappy  thing,  that 
this  mere  Greekism  has  been  copied  by  the  Eng- 
lish, especially  by  the  translators  of  ourBible  ;  and 
thus  neutral  pronouns  appHed  to  God.  ThiS,  that 
£;reat  divine  labors  in  one  of  his  sermons  to  show, 
is  infinitely  unworthy  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  is 
treating  him  with  i.idigriity.  This  unhappy  cir- 
cumstance, of  applying  the  pronouns-  luhich,  and 
*7,  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  has,  by  accustoming  the 
ears  of  people  to  these  neutral  words,  done  much 
toward  preparing  tlie  way  to  lead  men  more  easily 
to  doubt  of  the  real  personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
It  has  made  it  seem  to  some  (tliough  without  any 
arir^ment)  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  not  a  Person, 
but  a  thing  I  But  Christ,  in  the  afore-quoted  pas- 
ages,  relative  to  the  Comforter,  gives  to  the  Holy 
Ghost  a  new  name,  of  masculine  gender;  and  all 
the  words  relating  to  it,  are  masculine,  and  indica- 
tive of  a  distinct  Personality  from  the  Father  and 
Christ. 

We  find,  in  the  various  part?  of  the  Bible,  the 
names,  relatives,  and  actions  of  Agents,  are  applied 
to  the  Holy  Ghost.  ^Ve  read  of  his  being  sent  of 
the  Father,  of  his  coming,  testifying,  striving,  being 
grieved,  hearing,  willing,  teaching,  showing,  speak- 
ing, conveying,  inspiring,  moving,  appointing,  re- 
proving, converting,  and  comforting.  Is  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Holy  Oracles  so  unmeaning,  or  inde* 


15% 

terminate,  that  after  all,  which  is  said  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  it  is  erroneous  to  beheve  in  his  real  person- 
ality ?  Whose  wisdom  can  decide  this  ?  Who 
among  men  can  decide,  that  when  the  Book  of  in- 
spiration throughout  does  represent  the  Holy  Spirit 
as  a  Person,  distinct  in  the  Godnead,  yet  we  are 
not  to  conceive  of  him  as  being  a  distinct  Person  ? 
Let  the  following  scriptures,  in  addition  to  what 
has  been  said,  be  devoutly  weighed.  ''  And  they 
were  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  began  to 
speak  with  other  tongues,  as  the  Spirit  gave  them 
utterance.''  "  The  Holy  Ghost  said,  Separate  me 
Barnabas  and  Saul,  for  the  work,  whereunto  I  have 
appointed  them."  "  So  they  being  sent  forth  by 
the  Holy  Ghost." — -'Holy  men  spake  as  they  were 
moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  "  As  the  Holy  Ghost 
saith.  To  day  if  ye  will  hear  his  voice."  Whose 
voice  ?  The  Holy  Ghost  speaking  does  not  say  my 
voice  ;  but  his  voice, — the  voice  of  another  Per- 
son in  the  Trinity.  He  testifies  of  the  Father. 
Again.  Paul  preached  the  gospel,  "in  words, which 
the  Holy  Ghost  teacheth."  "Why  hath  satan  filled 
thine  heart  to  lie  unto  the  Holy  Ghost  ?"  "  Grieve 
not  the  holy  Spirit  of  God,  whereby  ye  are  sealed 
to  the  day  of  redemption.''  "  All  these  worketh 
one  and  the  selfsame  Spirit,  dividing  to  every  man 
severally  as  he  will."  The  Spirit  here  willeth  ! 
"  Yoar  bodies  are  the  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'' 
"  As  many  as  are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  are 
the  sons  of  God."  "  The  Spirit  suffered  us  not." 
"  The  Spirit  said  unto  Philip.  Go  near,  and  join 
thysC'f  unto  this  chariot."  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord 
caught  away  Phihp."  "  But  he,  that  speaketh 
against  the  Holy  Ghost,  shall  never  be  forgiven." 
"  The  Spirit  itself  maketh  intercession  in  the 
saints,  according  to  the  will  of  God."  Here  the 
Spint  and  God  are   represented  as  two  Persons. 


154 

^^'  The  Spirit  itself  beareth  witness  with  our  spirit, 
that  we  are  the  children   of  God."     la  t'.ie  begin- 
ning of  the  Bible  the  Spirit  is  spoken  of,  as  a  per- 
sonal Agent  :*  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  moved  ap- 
on  the  face  of  the  watere."  In  the  last  chapter  oi 
this  Book  of  grace,  we  have  the  same :  "  The  Spir- 
it and  the   bride   say,  Come."     And   through  the 
whole  sacred  volume,  we  have  tlie  like  representa- 
tions.    Some  instances  of  this  have  been  noted. 
Many  more  might  be  given.    "  Thoa  sendest  forth 
thy  Spirit,  they  are  created."    "  The  Spirit  lifted 
me  up."  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  hath  taken  him 
up,  and  cast  him  upon  some  mountain."     "  The 
Holy  Ghost  spake  by  the  mouth  of  David."  "Well 
spake  the  Holy  Ghost  by  Esaias.''     "  If  I  cast  out 
devils     by    the     Spirit  of    God."—"  The  Spirit 
searcheth  all  things,  yea  even  the  deep  things  of 
God."  Here,  as  in  numerous  other  passages,  God, 
and  the  Spirit   of  God  are  distinguished  as   two 
Persons.     Eiihu   says,  "  The  Spirit  of  God   hath 
made  me."     "  And  the  Spirit  said  unto  Peter,  Be- 
hold three  men  seek  thee — I  have  sent  them."  "It 
seemed  good  unto  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  to  us." — 
"  He  that  hath  an  ear,  let  him  iiear  what  the  Spir- 
it saith  to  the  Churches." 

Do  not  these,  and  the  numerous  similar  scrip- 
tures clearly  indicate,  that  there  is  a  third  Person 
in  the  Godhead  ?  Can  this  be  denied,  without  de- 
nying plain  and  ai)undant  scripture  testimoriy  ?  It 
cannot  be  denied,  that  the  sacred  oracles  do,  in 
fact,  represent  the  Holy  Ghost  as  a  distinct  Per- 
son in  the  Godhead.  Who  ihen  has  wisdom  acute 
enough  to  correct  these  divine  representations, 
which  God  himself  has  made  ?  Is  not  his  word  the 
only  rule  of  faith  ?  Is  it  to  be  construed  with  words 
of  human  wisdom  ?  or  of  the  wisdom,  which  the 
Holy  Ghost  teacii^th  ?  Are  the  testimonies,  diviac- 


155 

1y  given  upon  iliis  subject,  lo  be  dii-credited.  be- 
cause they  are  not  fully  comprehended,  or  do  not 
please  our  taste  ? 

Relative  to  the  Personality  of  the  divine  Spirit, 
does  not  ihe  account  given  by  our  Lord  concern- 
ing the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  go  to  subbtan- 
tiate  it  ?  Matt.  xii.  31^  32:  "  Whereiore  I  5«ay  un- 
to you,  Ail  manner  of  sin  and  blasphemy  shail  be 
forgiven  unto  men  ;  but  the  blasphemy  against  the 
Holy  Ghost  shali  not  be  for-lven  unto  men.  And 
whosoever  speaketh  a  word  against  the  Son  of 
man,  it  shall  be  forgiven  him  :  but  v.  hosoever 
apeaketh  a^amst  the  Hoi}  Ghost,  it  shail  not  be 
forgiven  him.  neither  in  this  worid,  liCuher  in  the 
world  to  come.^'  (See  also  Mark  iii.  28,  29  ;  and 
Luke  xii.  10.)  All  sins,  and  blasphemies  where- 
with soever  they  shall  blaspheme  ;  ai^d  also  speak- 
ing against  Christ,  may  be  forgiv  en.  Here  it  bcems 
are  blasphemies  against  tlie  Father,  and  against 
the  Son.  that  may  be  pardoned.  \V;  at  can  the 
bla-phemies  be,  which  are  distinguished  from 
speaking  against  Christ,  and  from  the  bias])hemy 
.against  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  blasphemies  against 
the  Father  ?  Sins  against  the  Father  aiid  the  Son 
then,  may  be  pardoned.  '*  But  whosoever  speak- 
eth against  tlTe  Holy  Ghost,  it  shall  never  be  for- 
given him!"  Does  not  this  strongly  indicate,  that 
the  Hoiy  Ghost  has  personal  existence  /  Can  this 
be  only  the  operations  of  the  Father  personitied  ? 
Would  it  be  so  much  more  dangerous  to  speak  a 
word  against  merely  a  person  in  tigure,  than  to  be 
piilty  of  all  manner  of  blasphemies  against  God, 
and  against  Christ  ?  What  man,  after  this  descrip- 
tion given  byChrist,of  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost 
has  knowledge  acute  enough  to  decide,  that  no 
guch  real  person  exists;  and  that  to  believe  the 
affirmative,  is  a  hurtfui  error  ?  This  account  of  the 


156 

sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  is  clearly  calculated  to 
evince  his  distinct  Personality, 

''  The  fellowship  of  the  Spirit"  is  mentioned,  in 
holy  writ,  as  well  as  the  fellowship  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son  :  Are  we  not  hence  taught  his  per- 
sonal existence  ?  Christ  says  of  the  Comforter, 
"He  shall  not  speak  of  himself."  Has  he  not  then^ 
a  self? 

While  the  Holy  Ghost  is  represented  as  distinct 
in  the  Godhead,  his  essential  unity  with  God  is,  at 
the  same  time  most  clearly  ascertained.     I   might 
quote  many  texts  to  evince  this  :  But  it  is  needless. 
A  few  inspired  testimonies  may  suffice.     Vv  e  are 
assured,  ''  He  that  made  all  things,  is  God."     Eiut 
Ehhu  said,  "The  Spirit  of  God  hath  made  me." 
The  Spirit  then,  is  God.     Christ  says,   "  The  Fa- 
ther in  me  doeth  the  works."     But  he  says  also, 
"  If  I  cast  out  devils  by  the  Spirit  of  God."— Th© 
Father  then,  and  the  Spirit  are  one.    Again.    "  All 
scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God."     But 
"  Holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they  were  moved  by 
the  Holy  Ghost."     Here  the  Holy  Ghost  is  God. 
"  The  I^ord  God,  who  spake  by  the  mouth  of  his 
holy  prophets,  since  the  world  began."     Yet  we 
read  '•  Well  spake  the  Holy  Ghost  \ij  Esaias  the 
prophet." — The    Holy  Ghost  here  is  the  Lord 
God.     "  There  is  none  good  but  one,  that  is  God." 
But  David  says,   "  Thy  Spirit  is  good."     Here 
again  the  Spirit  is  God.     Peter  said  to  Ananias, 
"  Why  hath  Satan  filled  thine  heart  to  lie  unto  the 
Holy   Ghost?"    "  Thou  hast   not  lied   unlomen, 
but  unto  God."     "Born  of  the  Spirit,"  and  "  bora 
of  God,"  are  perfectly  equivalent,   in   the  Bible. 
Christians  are  the  "  Temple  of  God."     Yet  thejr 
are  the  "  Temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  they 
have  of  God."     "  The  heavens  declare  the  glory 
of  God."     But  it  is  because  that  God,  "  by  his 
Sjpirit,  hath  garnished  the  heavens."     The  Spirit 


157 

is  onaniscient :  '•  he  searcheth  all  things ;  yea, 
even  tiie  deep  things  of  God."  it  uaav^oidauiy 
follows,  that  lie  is  God.  The  Holy  Gnost  said, 
*•  Separate  me  Baraabas  and  Saul,  for  the  work 
whereuato  1  iiave  appointed  them."  But  we  read, 
"  No  man  taketh  this  honor  to  himself,  but  he  tnat 
is  called  of  God."  Tiie  Holy  Ghost  then,  is  God. 
Chnst  was  begotten  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  and  there- 
fore should  be  called  the  Son  of  God.  Hence  the 
Holy  Giiost  is  God  ; — one  with  the  Highest  :-rr 
^'  He  (Christ)  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  the  High- 
est." '^  And  he  (the  Lord  God)  put  forth  the 
form  of  an  hand,  and  took  me  by  a  lock  of  mine 
head  ; — and  the  Spirit  hfted  me  up."  Here  th© 
Spirit  was  the  Lord  God.  The  Spirit,  as  the 
Comforter,  dwells  in  all  the  saints.  But  it  is  the 
'-  High  and  Lofty  One,  who  inhabits  eternity,  that 
dwells  with  the  broken  hearted."  "  God  is  in  you 
of  a  truth."  These  Two  then,  are  One  God.  Per- 
fections absolutely  divine  are  ascribed  to  tlie  Spir- 
it. He  is,  by  way  of  divine  eminence,  called  the 
Eternal  Spirit ;  the  Spirit  of  Wisdom  and  Knowl- 
edge ;  the  Spirit  of  Promise  ;  the  Spirit  of  Truth  ; 
the  Spirit  of  Power ;  the  Spirit  of  Holiness  ;  and 
the  Holy  Spirit;  yea,  the  Spirit  of  Christ;  the 
Spirit  of  the  Lord  ;  and  the  Spirit  of  God. 

I'hus  we  are  divinely  taught  to  conceive,  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  has  both  distinct  personality  and  prop- 
er Divinity,  in  the  Godhead.  None  can  doubt  but 
the  Father  has  real  personahty.  The  Son,  it 
has  been  shewn,  is  represented  as  having  real 
personality  in  his  proper  Deity.  And  the  Ho- 
ly Ghost,  it  appears,  is  exhibited  as  though  he 
were  possessed  of  real  personality,  and  real 
Divinity.  Are  there  not  then,  three  in  one 
God  ?  "  the  same  in  substance,  equal  in  pow- 
er and  glory,"  as  is  expressed  by  the  Assembly  of 
14 


158 

Divines  at  ^Westminster.  I  see  no  way  to  evade 
this  result,  but  by  rejecting  or  perverting  the  Woid 
of  God.  Of  the  Christian,  our  Lord  says,  "My 
Father  will  love  him  5  and  we  will  come  unto  him  ; 
aiKl  will  make  our  abode  with  him."  And  also  he 
assures,  that  the  Comforter,  whom  the  Father  will 
send  in  Christ's  name,  he  shall  abide  in  all  such 
forever.  Here  then  are  the  Father,  Christ,  and 
the  Comforter,  three  omnipresent  Persons  in  one 
God,  dwelling  w^ith  every  saint !  So  the  Word  of 
God  expressly  represents.  Shall  we  believe  the 
divine  representation?  Or  shall  we  re,ect  it,  as  in- 
credible? We  can  plead  numberless  precedents  on 
both  sides  of  the  question.  Many  have  believed  ; 
and  many  have  disbeheved.  It  is  for  us  to  choose 
w^ith  which  class  we  will  have  our  lot.  And  we 
should  do  well  to  consider,  that  the  decision  can- 
not be  of  minor  importance.  Much,  very  much  is 
depending  upon  it.  Our  sentiments  upon  these 
points  will  lie  at  the  root  of  our  Religion.  The 
reality  of  an  atonement  made  for  sin,  depends  on 
the  real  Deity  of  Jesus  Christ.  Men,  w^ho  deny 
the  Trinity,  and  thus  the  real  Deity  of  Jesus 
Christ,  will,  whh  Dr.  Priestly,  as  soon  as  they  are 
prepared  to  follow^  the  plainest  leadings  of  their 
ow^n  sentiments,  deny  the  existence  and  the  neces- 
sity of  the  atonement ;  and  will  essentially  vary 
the  whole  plan  of  salvation.  When  men  begin  to 
doubt,  and  shift  their  sentiments  relative  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  none  can  tell  where  they 
will  land,  unless  in  intidelity.  Dr.  Priestly  ac- 
knowledges, that  "he  passed  from  Trinitarianism 
to  high  Arianism  ;  from  this  to  low  Arianism  ;  and 
from  this  to  Socinianism.  even  of  the  lowest  kind, 
in  which  Christ  is  considered  as  a  mere  man,  the 
son  of  Joseph  and  IMary,  and  naturally  as  fallible 
and  peccable  as  Moses,  or  any  other  prophet.'* 
This  is  a  most  natural  description  of  the  transition 


159 

to  skepticism  ;  or  the  process  to  infidelity.  The 
way  is  a  steep  descent,  and  is  open  and  slippery. 
It  may  ahnost  be  said  of  the  first  step  in  it,  as  of 
the  approach  to  the  harlot  in  the  Proverbs.*'  They 
that  ;^o  unto  her  never  return,  neither  take  the}^ 
bold  of  the  path  of  life."  And  no  v/onder.  The 
scheme  of  grace  rests  on  the  doctrine  of  the  three 
Divine  Persons.  Christians  are  from  the  begin- 
ning, before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  chosen  of 
God  the  Father  ;  given  to  Jesus  Christ,  to  be  re- 
deemed by  his  infinite  atonement :  and  to  be  saved 
through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  as  well  as 
sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Christ.  Each  of  the 
three  divine  Persons  has  an  essential  part  in  the 
plan  of  salvation.  Let  one  then  be  denied,  and 
the  plan  is  destroyed.  The  Anti-trinitarian  senti- 
ment is,  in  its  fair  implication,  an  axe  laid  to  the 
root  of  the  tree  of  gospel  grace.  Men  of  this  sen- 
timent may  please  themselves,  that  their  depar- 
ture is  small;  and  all  ttie  excellencies  oi"  ui^ 
scheme  of  grace,  they  will  retain.  But  their  hopes 
are  illusory,  as  are  his,  who  builds  upon  the  sand  ; 
or  who  leaves  a  leak  in  his  ship,  and  hopes  it  will 
not  cause  it  to  founder. 

I  might  multiply  arguments  from  the  scriptures 
in  favor  of  the  Divine  Trinity,  "  The  Spirit  of 
truth  shall  glorify  me  ;  for  he  shall  take  of  mine, 
and  shall  show  it  unto  you.  All  things  that  the 
Father  hath  are  mine  ;  therefore  said  I,  that  he 
shall  take  of  mine,  and  show  it  unto  you."  Here 
are  the  three  distinct  Persons  in  the  Godhead,  the 
Father,  Christ,  and  the  Spirit  of  truth. 

The  heavenly  worshippers,  in  their  repeated 
ascriptions  of  ''  Holy,  holy,  holy,"  it  may  be  ra- 
tionally supposed,  have  immediate  reference  to 
the  Three  in  One,  in  the  Godhead.  Such 
testimoiiies  as  the  following  to  the  Trinity  in  Uni- 
ty in  God,  abound   in  the  sacred  oracles.     Paul 


160 

sajs,  *'  I  was  made  a  minister  according  to  the  gi|(; 
€f  the  grace  of  God,  given  unto  me  by  the  efiec- 
tual  working  of  his  power."  In  another  pas- 
sage — ''  That  the  power  of  Christ  may  rest 
wpon  me."  In  a  third — ''  To  make  the  Gentiles 
©bedient,  by  word  and  deed,  through  mighty 
figns  and  wonders,  by  the  power  of  the  Spirit  of 
God."  Here  the  same  power  is  the  power  of 
God,  of  Christ,  and  of  the  Spirit.  '•  Do  not  I  till 
heaven  and  earth,  saith  the  Lord?"  '^  The  full- 
ness of  him,  (Christ,)  that  filleth  all  in  all." 
*^  Whether  shall  1  go  from  thy  Spirit."  Here,  (as 
in  other  scriptures.)  God,  Christ,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit,  are  omnipresent.  As  in  the  following ; 
Christ  says,  ''  If  any  man  love  me,  he  will  keep 
my  words,  and  my  Father  will  love  him,  and  v/e 
will  come  unto  him,  and  make  our  abode  with 
him.''  Here  is  the  omnipresence  of  the  two  first 
Persons  in  the  Trinity.  And  Christ  tells  his  pcQ- 
pler^.fttthe  Comtbrtcr  \vhom  he  will  send  fiona 
the  Father,  shall  be  in  them,  and  abide  in  them. 
Here  then,  is  a  Trinity  with  every  saint. 

Moses  directs  Israel  to  love  the  Lord  thy  God  ; 
"  for  he  is  thy  life."  Paul  says,  "  When  Christ, 
who  is  our  life,  shall  appear,  we  also  shall  appear 
with  him  'in  glory."  And  to  the  Romans,  he  calls 
the  Holy  Ghost,  ''  The  Spirit  of  life."  Here  is 
the  Trinity  in  God,  the  life  of  his  people. 

John  says,  "  Truly  our  fellowship  is  with  the 
Father,  and  with  his  Son  Jesus  Christ."  Paul 
says,  "  The  fellowship  of  the  Holy  Ghost  be  with 
you  all." 

"  It  is  written,  They  shall  be  all  taught  of  God.** 

Paul  informs  the  Galatians,  "  Neither  was  I 
taught  it,  but  by  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ." 
Christ  says,  "  The  Comforter — will  teach  you  all 
ftjings." 


161 

*'  I  am  the  Lord  thy  God,  who  leadeth  thee  by 
the  way  that  thou  shouldst  go."  "  He  (Christ) 
calleth  his  owa  sheep  by  name,  and  leadest  them.'^ 
"  As  m^ny  as  are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God  are  the 
sons  of  God." 

Of  the  saints  Jude  says,  "  To  them  that  are 
sanctified  by  God  the  Father.''  The  apostle  to 
the  Hebrews  says  of  Christ,  "  He  that  sanctitieth, 
and  they  that  are  sanctified  are  all  of  one  ;  for 
which  caase  he  is  not  ashamed  to  call  them  breth- 
ren." And  to  the  Romans;  '*  Being  sanctified  by 
the  Holy  Ghost." 

Here,  and  in  many  other  scriptures,  we  find  the 
Trinity  in  the  Godhead  united  in  all  the  scheme, 
and  the  operation  of  grace  and  salvation. 

If  the  arguments  adduced  from  scripture,  be  by 
any  deemed  insufficient  to  substantiate  the  doc- 
trine of  three  Persons  in  the  Godhead  ;  it  will  be 
in  vain  to  adduce  any  other  scriptural  evidence  ! 

Objection  1,  But  God  speaks  of  pouring  out 
his  Spirit.  Does  not  this  indicate,  that  the  Spirit 
is  not  an  Agent,  but  merely  the  energy  of  the  Fa- 
ther ? 

Answer.  This  is  a  figurative  expression.  What 
is  the  thing  promised  ?  Certainly,  a  gracious  di- 
vine operation  in  the  soul  ;  which  implies  a  divine 
personal  agency  there.  And  what  do  the  more 
literal  parts  of  the  Bible  teach,  concerning  this 
agency  ?  They  teach,  that  it  is  the  ?gency  o?  the 
Holy  Ghost.  As  our  Lord  says ;  "  The  Comforter, 
•whom  the  Father  will  send  in  my  name,  he  shall 
teach  you  all  things."  "He  shall  take  of  mine, 
and  show  it  unto  you."  "  He  shall  abide  with 
you  forever."  This  appears  to  be  the  literal  rep- 
resentation ;  the  other  the  figurative. 

The  operations  of  grace  in  the  soul  are  often 
expressed  in  holy  writ,  in  allusion  to  the  modes  of 
14* 


1G2 

ordinances,  which  relate  to  them.  The  new  heart 
is  the  circumcised  heart ;  because  circumcision 
was  the  ••' seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith." 
The  same  operation  Under  the  gospel,  is  a  wash- 
ing with  water ;  "  having  the  heart  sprinkled 
from  an  evil  conscience,  and  the  body  washed 
with  pure  water."  "  By  the  washing  of  regenera- 
tion, and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,''  These 
and  similar  passages  allude  to  that  washing  with 
water  which  denotes  the  operations  of  the  Spirit  of 
grace  on  the  soul.  And  upon  the  same  principle 
we  find  the  figurative  language  of  God's  pouring 
out  his  Spirit;  alluding  to  the  pouring  of  water,  in 
religious  ablutions,  which  were  external  represen- 
tations of  the  operations  of  the  Spirit  in  the  heart. 
But  this  language  goes  not  at  all  to  abate  the  force 
of  the  evidence,  which  appears  in  favor  of  the  per- 
sonality of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  analogy  between 
the  natural  and  moral  worlds,  has  occasioned  a 
great  use  of  metaphorical  language.  But  metaphors 
must  not  be  so  construed  as  to  contradict  literal 
representations.  We  say,  the  secretary  of  state 
is  a  pri^  e  organ  of  the  executive.  But  should 
any  one  infer  from  this,  that  the  secretary  is  not  a 
distinct  person,  but  a  constituent  part  of  the  per- 
son of  the  president ;  he  would  err.  And  no  less 
perhaps,  do  they  err,  who  imagine,  from  the  lan- 
guage of  God's  pouring  out  his  spirit,  that  the  spir- 
it is  not  an  Agent ;  but  merely  an  operation  of  the 
Father  personified. 

Objection  2.  The  Holy  Ghost  never  receives 
worship  distinctly  from  tl  e  Father  ;  therefore  he 
has  no  distinct  agency.  Christ  was  distinctly  wor- 
shipped ;  bat  not  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Answer,  If  the  Holy  Ghost  be  not  worshipped 
distinctly  from  the  Father,  it  is  because  there  nev- 
er was  any  occasion  for  such  distinct  worship.  He 
h  worshipped  in  the  w©rsliip  paid  t®  the   Father. 


163 

The  Father  is  at  the  head  of  the  economy  of  grace-. 
Worship  paid  to  the  Father,  is  paid  to  the  Father, 
Son  and  Holy  Ghost.  And  probably  no  distinct 
worship  would  ever  have  been  paid  to  Jesus  Christ, 
had  it  not  been  for  the  peculiarity  of  the  case,  that 
God  was  manifest  in  the  flesh.  To  evidence  to 
creatures  the  real  and  proper  Deity  of  Jesus  Christ, 
who  appeared  a  man  in  the  flesh,  and  to  accord 
with  the  exaltation  of  his  glorified  humanity.  God 
decided  that  Christ  should  he  worshipped;  that  -'all 
men  should  honor  the  Son,  as  they  honor  the  Fa- 
ther." But  there  never  was  any  occasion  for  such 
a  decision  relative  to  the  worship  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  We  are  never  instructed  to  worship  the 
Father,  in  distinction  from  the  Holy  Ghost.  Is  it 
strange  then,  if  we  are  not  instructed  to  worship 
the  Holy  Ghost,  in  distinction  from  the  Father  ? 

But  is  it  a  given  point,  that  no  worship  is  ever 
directed  to  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  The  spouse  prays, 
"Awake,  O  north  wind,  and  coine  thou  south; 
blow  upon  my  garden  ;  that  its  spices  may  flow 
forth."  Is  not  this  an  address  to  the  Spirit  of  God? 
Christ,  probably  in  allusion  to  this  very  text,  says, 
"  The  wind  bloweth  where  it  listeth  ;  and  thou 
hearest  the  sound  thereof;  but  canst  not  tell 
whence  it  cometh,  or  whither  it  goeth  :  so  is  eve- 
ry one  that  is  born  of  the  spirit."  Here  the  wind, 
that  maketh  the  spices  of  Grace  to  flow,  is  the 
Spirit  of  God.  The  apostle  says,  '-Quench  not 
the  spirit."  And,  "  Grieve  not  the  holy  Spirit  of 
God,  whereby  ye  are  sealed  unto  the  day  of  re- 
demption." Is  not  a  devout  attention  to  the  Com- 
forter within,  here  demanded  ?  And  can  this  be 
distinguished  from  real  worship  ?  The  numerous 
directions  to  keep  the  heart,  to  pray  always  in  the 
spirit ;  and  not  to  stir  up  nor  awake  our  love,  un- 
til he  please,  demand  a  treatment  of  the  Holy 
Ghostj  which   I  am  not  able   to  distinguish  frona 


164 

real  worship.  In  the  commission  of  baptism,  and 
in  the  benediction,  the  holy  Spirit  is  worsliipped. 
If  the  ascriptions  of  ••  Holy,  holy,  holy,"  be  (as  it 
is  thoi^ht)  a  doxoio3;y  to  the  Trinity,  then  the  ho- 
ly Spirit  hefe  receives  distinct  worship.  The  Ho- 
ly Ghost  informed  Simeon,  that  he  should  not  die, 
till  he  had  seen  Christ.  .  And  upon  Simeon's  be- 
holding the  Babe  of  Bethlehem,  he  blessed  and 
praised  God.  who  had  made  this  communication,  <k 
said  •'  Lord,  now  lettest  thou  thy  servant  depart  in 
peace,  according  to  thy  word.''  Was  not  the  Ho- 
ly Ghost  here  worsliipped  ?  Did  not  the  apostles 
and  primitive  Christians  devoutly  adore  the  heav- 
enly Agent,  by  whom  they  were  led  ?  And  was 
not' this  Agent  the  Holy  Ghost?  We  shall  find, 
under  the  next  section,  that  tiie  writers  of  the  mar- 
tyrdom of  Ignatius  of  Aatioch.  who  was  cotempo- 
rary  with  St.  John,  close  their  narrative  with  a 
doxology  to  the  three  Persons  in  the  Godhead,  as 
strongly  expressed,  as  any  Trinitarian  doxology  at 
the  present  day. 

Objection  3.  Did  not  Jesus  Christ  acknoW^ 
ledge  his  dependence  on  the  Father  ?  that  the  Fa- 
ther in  him  did  the  works  ?  And  was  not  the  Ho- 
ly Ghost  given  to  Christ  without  measure  ?  If 
Christ  was  tilled  with  the  Holy  Ghost ; — anointed 
with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  power  : — and  says  ; 
"The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  God  was  upon  me.  because 
he  hath  anointed  me  to  preach  glad  tidings"" — - 
Wherein  then  did  Christ  need  or  possess  any  per- 
sonal divinitv  :  or  any  divine  personality  beside 
the  Holy  Ghost? 

Answer,  It  has  been  noted  that  Christ  has  two 
natures,  human  and  divine  :  that  he  is  the  Root 
and  Olfspring  of  David.  His  human  nature  and 
his  official  character  were  totally  dependent  on  the 
Godhead.     And  this  dependence  Christ  often  ac* 


165 

knowledged.  It  was  the  humanity  of  Christ,  in 
which  ••  God  was  manifest,"  to  man  on  earth.  In 
this  God  held  converse  with  man.  Concerning 
Christ's  humanity  therefore,  men  would  need  infor- 
mation, that  it  laid  no  claim  to  independence. 
Christ  made  no  pretence,  that  his  human  nature 
was  divine  nature  ;  but  he  gave  information,  that 
all  his  mighty  works  were  done  by  the  invisible, 
infinite  God  who  dwelt  in  the  man  Christ.  This 
God  within,  Christ  saw  fit  to  call  the  Father,  who 
had  now  taken  that  relation  to  Christ,  and  who  is 
at  the  head  of  the  economy  of  grace.  In  this 
economy  the  Father  holds  in  his  hands  the  hon- 
ors of  the  Godhead,  or  of  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost.  It  is  rational  then,  that  the  Father 
should  be  mentioned,  when  Christ  spake  of  the  in- 
tinite  Divinity  within  him,  rather  than  the  secoi.d 
Person,  or  the  third.  It  has  been  shown  in  an  an- 
tecedent section,  that  in  the  scheme  of  the  gospe} 
the  Mediator  is  dependent  on  the  Father  for  his 
official  character,  and  for  its  stipulated  blessings  ; 
that  these  rest  on  the  covenant  subsisting  between 
the  two  Persons,  Christ  and  his  covenanted  head. 
If  two  men  of  equal  abilities  were  prosecuting  a 
plan,  which  rested  on  a  covenant  between  them, 
and  one  had  covenanted  to  act  a  subordinate  part, 
this  man  would  naturally  acknowledge  his  depen- 
dence, m  this  plan,  on  his  stipulated  principal ; 
even  though,  in  other  respects,  he  were  equal. 

And  v/e  may  conceive,  that  such  is  the  unity  of 
the  Three  inthe  Godhead,  that  each  may  say,  "lean 
of  mine  own  self  do  nothing  ;  nothing  contrary  to 
the  plan  mutually  pursued  ;  nothing  separate  from 
the  others  in  the  Godhead  :  We  are  one  ;  and 
operate  as  one."  "  Let  us  make  man."  "  Let  us 
go  down,  and  confound  their  language."  "  Who 
will  go  for  us  ?"     So  with  respect  to  every  divine 


166 

purpose.  As  the  Three  have  but  one  essence,  so 
they  have  but  one  plan.  And  each  must  be  infi- 
nitely uaable  to  exercise  a  volition  to  operate  con- 
trary to  this  plan,  or  separately  from  it. 

It  is  in  like  manner  said  of  Christ,  Mark  vi.  5  ; 
"  He  could  there  do  no  miijhty  works,  because  ot' 
their  unbelief."  And  in  Gen.  xvii.  22,  Ihe  Lord 
Christ  said  to  Lot,  "  Haste  thee,  escape  thither ; 
for  I  cannot  do  any  thing,  till  thou  be  come  thither:" 
Christ  in  these  instances  was  morally  unable  to  do 
any  thing  contrary  to  the  plan  of  the  Godhead. 

Each  one  in  reality  does  what  is  done  by  either. 
Accordingly,  the  works  which  God  does,  are  as- 
cribed in  different  parts  of  holy  writ  to  each  on^ 
in  the  Godhead  ;  thouj^h  some  things  are  more  pe- 
culiarly office  work  for  each. 

Hence  Christ,  speakinc;  (as  the  man,  whom  Che 
Jews  beheld)  of  the  Divinity,  who  operated  with- 
in him    w'onlrl    ,  .^^-,^.  n,-         -.1.  ,  r  ^k:~  ,r,.:..^  -^^,., 

son  as  being  the  Father;  because  nothing  was  done 
without  the  Father  ;  and  he  is  the  Head  of  the 
econo'^y  of  grace  subsisting  between  the  Three  in 
the  Godhead.  The  Father  would  of  course  be 
mentioned  first,  when  the  Three  were  mentioned. 
And  he  would  often  be  mentioned  alone,  as  ex- 
pressing the  whole  of  Deity.  This  latter  must  be 
the  case,  when  Christ  informs.  *'  The  Father,  who 
dwelieth  in  me,  doeth  the  works.''  Other  scrip- 
tures explain  the  passage.  '•  In  him  (Christ)  dwelt 
the  fulness  of  the  Godhead'bodily."  Here  we  learn 
the  true  sense  of  the  Father's  dwelling  in  Christ. 
Tiie  Father  here,  is  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  : 
the  first,  second,  and  third  in  the  Trinity.  The 
second  is  not  excluded,  but  included. 

Sometimes  ihe  Holy  Spirit  is  mentioned,  as  ex- 
pressing the  v;hole  of  the  (jodiiead  dwelling  in 
Christ,  while  he  was  oa  earth.     ''  I  will  put  my 


167 

Spirit  upon  him,  and  he  shall  bring  forth  judgnnent 
unto  the  gentiles."  The  Holy  Ghost  was  accor- 
dingly represented  as  given  without  measure  to 
Christ.  Christ  was  of  God  '*  anointed  wiih  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  with  power.''  Or  in  other  words  ; 
"  In  him  dwelt  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily." 
The  triune  God  dwelt  in  the  Person  of  the  Media- 
tor. The  words,  Messiah,  and  Christ,  signify  the 
anointed  One.  This  anointing  was  with  the  Hoiy 
Ghost.  He  accordingly  descended,  in  bodily 
shape,  like  a  dove,  on  the  head  of  Jesus,  when  ne 
w  as  ind  icted  into  his  High  Priest's  office.  '*  The 
Spirit  of  the  Lord  God  is  upon  me,  because  he 
hatii  anomted  me  to  preach  good  tidings  to  the 
meek."  But  are  we  to  infer  from  such  passages, 
CO  itrary  to  all  the  positive  evidence  found  of 
Christ's  proper  Deity,  that  there  is  no  second  Per- 
son in  the  Godhead  ?  AVhy  is  such  a  deduction  to 
be  made,  any  more  than  we  are  to  infer  from 
Christ's  saying,  that  the  Father  in  him  did  the 
works,  that  there  is  no  Holy  Ghost  ?  But  notwith- 
standing that  the  Father  did  the  works,  yet  the 
Holy  Ghost  did  them.  And  why  not  the  second 
divine  person  in  the  Trinity  likewise  '!  He  was 
in  the  beginning  with  God,  and  was  God  ;  and 
has  every  name,  title,  and  work  of  God  ascribed 
to  him.  Mast  not  this  Person  then,  have  been  in- 
cluded ?  Notwithstanding  that  the  meek  and  low- 
ly Jesus,  in  the  days  of  his  flesh  on  earth,  and  as 
the  man,  whom  the  Jews  beheld,  ascribed  the  mi- 
racles he  wrought  to  the  Godhead  under  the  name 
of  the  Father.  The  Father,  in  predicting  these 
events,  ascribed  them  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  his 
being  given  without  measure  to  Christ.  And  the 
Holy  Ghost  (in  his  many  testimonies  borne  to 
Christ's  Divinity)  virtually  ascribed  his  m'ghtjr 
works  to  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  in  that  he  abua- 


168 

daiitly  testifies  that  he  is  the  Mighty  God,  the  evcFr 
lasting  Fatlier.  It  seems  that  each  one  in  the 
sacred  Trinity  often  ascribed  the  works  divinely 
wrought  to  another  in  the  Godhead  beside  himself; 
bat  by  no  means  with  a  view  to  insinuate  that  him- 
se;f  did  not  exist,  or  had  no  agency  in  the  opera- 
tions. No  doubt  the  whole  Godhead,  who  dwelt 
in  Christ  bodily,  co-operated  in  all  that  was  done. 
For  they  are  one  God.  Paul  says  of  Christ,  '^  wh© 
only  hath  immortality;''  1  Tim.  ii.  16.  But  he 
could  not  mean  here  to  exclude  immortality  from 
the  Father,  or  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  no  more  did 
Cifrisi's  ascribing  his  miracles  to  the  Father,  aiid 
to  tile  Holy  Ghost,  exclude  from  tlie  agency,  which 
produced  ihem,  his  own  Divinity. 

Some  may    imagine,  that  the   indwelling  of  the 
Faiher  in  Christ,  and  the  unmeasurable  etiusionc 
oi"  tile  Holy  Ghost  upon  him,  constitute  Christ's 
Dvinity  ;  that  he  iiCither  has,  nor  needs,  any  other 
Divinity,  than   this.      But  it  is  to    be    considered, 
that  this  could  uot  cotstitiite  Christ  a  Divine  Per- 
son.    And  Christ  had  inliii  te  Divinit}',  long  before 
these  things  are  represented  as  having  taken  place. 
It  was  in  the  da>s  of  his  humiliation  on  earth,  that 
the  Father  is  said   to  have  wrought  his   works  in 
him.  ahd  the  Holy  Ghost  to  have  been  given   him 
without  measure.     But  if  man  will  permit  God  to 
decide.  Christ  was  in  the  beginning,    eternal    ages 
before  this,  with  God,  aid    was  God  !  His   goings 
forth,  in  the  form  of  God,  and  equal  with   God, 
were  of  old,  even  from  everlasting.     The  Father's 
doing  the   works  in  Christ,  and  the  Holy   Ghost's 
being   given  to  him  without  measure,- seem  to  be 
expressions,  accommodated  to   the    weakness  of 
man,    to  represent   the   fulness  of    the   Godliead 
d  veiiinii  in. him.     But  does  this  prove,  that  Christ 
had  no  divine  personality  ?  So  lar  from  this,  that  it 


169 

rather  indicates  the  affirmative.  For  if  Christ  have 
no  divine  personaUty,  how  could  the  fulness  of  the 
Godhead  be  properly  said  to  dwell  in  him  ?  God 
is  figuratively  said  to  dwell  in  the  believer.  But 
I  must  think,  that  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead 
dwells  more  than  figuratively  in  Christ  ;  and  that 
this  indwelling  indicates,  that  he  himself  equally 
with  the  other  two,  is  a  divine  Person. 

Some  of  the  evidences  of  Christ's  real  and  eter- 
nal Divinity  have  been  exhibited.  In  the  fulness  of 
time  he  took  on  him  the  form  of  a  servant.  Now 
God  says,  "  Behold  my  servant,  whom  I  uphold — 
I  will  put  my  Spirit  upon  him."  But  the  sense  is 
shown  to  be  this,  "  In  him  dwelt  the  fulness  of  the 
Godhead  bodily."  Although  Christ's  own  Divinity 
at  times  appeared  thus  veiled  ;  yet  repeatedly  its 
glorious  etfulgenoe  shone  through  ;  and  Christ 
himself  did  the  miracles.  "  I  will ;  be  thou  clean. 
1  will  raise  this  temple  of  my  body  in  three  days. — 
Thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee. — -Whatsoever  ye  shall 
ask  in  my  name,  I  will  do  it.''  And  after  the  days 
of  Christ's  humiliation  were  ended,  the  evidences 
of  his  Divinity  were  abundant ;  as  has  been  shown, 
in  the  ministrations  of  the  apostles,  and  in  the  Re- 
velation to  St.  John. 

It  has  been  suggested,  that  the  whole  economy 
of  grace  rests  on  the  ground  of  there  being  differ- 
ent divine  Persons  in  the  Godhead.  The  Father 
holds  and  vindicates  the  honors  of  God.  The  Me- 
diator redeems.  And  the  Spirit  sanctifies.  And 
each  must  be  infinite,  in  order  to  be  adequate  to 
his  work.  The  Mediator  must  be  "  the  mighty 
God,"  "  the  Almighty,"  that  he  may  make  an  in- 
finite atonement  ;  and  be  "  mighty  to  save."  But 
though  Christ  must  be  the  infinite  God  ;  yet  in  the 
scheme  of  grace,  there  must  be  one  officially  above 
him,  who  holds  the  honors  of  the  Godhead  ;  and 
15 


170 

between  whom,  and  man,  the  infinite  Saviour  me- 
diates. Otherwise,  the  whole  econom}  of  grace 
appears  a  nulhty.  \\  hiie  the  Mediator  must  be 
God  and  man,  both  that  he  mav  die,  and  ins  biood 
be  of  infinite  avail  ;  there  must  be  one  God,  as 
wtli  as  one  Mediator  between  God  and  man  ;  and 
one  Spirit  of  grace,  to  apply  the  atonement,  and 
to  sanctify  and  save  the  Church. 

The  Bible  clearly  reads  thus,  notwithstanding 
all  the  objections  and  cavils  agamst  this  doctrine. 

No  doubt  Christ's  mediatorial  character  is  a 
constituted  character.  He  is  not  of  constituted, 
but  of  real  Divnnty.  But  his  office  as  Mediator 
is  constituted.  His  administration,  in  his  glorified 
humanity,  is  constituted.  This  appears  in  such 
language  as  the  following  :  -  Therefore  let  all  the 
house  of  l?rael  assured)}-  know^,  that  God  hath 
made  the  same  Jesus,  whom  ye  have  crucified, 
both  Lord  and  Christ."  "  All  powxT  is  given  unto 
me  in  heaven,  and  in  earth.''  It  is  to  be  exercised 
througli  the  glorified  humanity  of  Jesus  Christ,  till 
the  close  of  the  last  judgment*  '••As  the  Father 
hath  life  in  himself  ;  so  hath  he  given  unto  the  Son 
to.  have  life  in  himself;  and  hath  given  him  author- 
ity to  execute  judgment  also,  because  he  is  the 
Son  of  man."  Here  we  learn  one  reason  why 
Christ's  authority  is  said  to  have  been  given  him  ; 
"  because  he  is  the  Son  of  man."  As  the  Son  of 
man,  Christ  can  have  nothing  but  what  is  given 
him.  Hence  we  read,  ''  The  Lord  said  unto  my 
Lord,  Sit  thou  on  my  right  hand,  until  I  make  thine 
enemies  thy  footstool."  "  Rule  thou  in  the  midst 
of  thine  enemies.''  "  I  will  give  thee  the  heathen 
for  thine  inheritance,  and  the  uttermost  parts  of 
the  eartii  for  thy  possession."  *'  Wherefore  God 
hath  highly  exalted  him,  and  given  him  a  name, 
that  is  above  every  name." — "  And  hath  made  him 


171 

Head  over  all  things  to  the  church."  "  Him  harh 
God  exalted — to  give  repentance  to  Israel,  and 
forgiveness  of  sins."  "  Then  cometh  the  end. 
wuen  he  shall  have  deHvered  up  the  kingdom  to 
God,  even  the  Father."  "  Then  shall  the  Son  also 
be  subject  to  him,  who  did  put  all  things  under 
him  ;  that  God  may  be  all  in  all."  Much  we  tind, 
in  the  sacred  writings,  of  this  tenor.  This  has  in- 
duced some  incautious  readers  to  suppose,  that  the 
whole  Person  of  Christ  is  derived  and  dependent! 
But  these,  and  all  similar  scriptures,  relate  to  the 
mediatorial  administration  of  Christ  in  his  glorified 
humanity.  It  is  "  because  he  is  the  Son  of  man." 
The  whole  economy  of  grace  proceeds  on  the  plan, 
of  the  constituted  offices  of  Christ  ;  while  it  rests, 
at  the  same  time,  on  the  everlasting  basis  of  his 
real  and  proper  Divinity.  Christ  in  his  humilia- 
tion was  appointed  to  a  certain  work.  And  in  his 
glorilied  humanity  he  is  appointed  to  the  govern- 
ment of  the  world,  as  well  as  to  the  work  of  inter- 
cession in  heaven  ;  till  the  chosen  of  God  shall  be 
gathered  in.  Tlie  power  and  glory  of  the  infinite 
Godhead,  during  this  mediatorial  reign,  are  exhi- 
bited through  the  glorified  humanity  of  Christ. 
Angels  are  his  ministering  spirits,  to  gather  in  the 
heirs  of  salvation.  And  sufficient  notice  is  given, 
that  all  this  is  a  constituted  economy  between  the 
Persons  in  the  Godhead.  But  when  the  judgment 
shall  be  finished,  this  peculiar  economy  of  grace 
will  cease,  as  having  fully  accomphshed  its  object. 
But  the  Div^inity  of  Christ  will  not  cease.  Nor 
will  it  cease  to  be  a  truth,  that  there  are  three  in 
heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  ;  and  thit  these  three  are  one. 

We  find,  in  *^he  writings  of  St.  Paul,  the  Unity 
of  the  C  aead,  in  opposition  to  the  pagan  poly- 
th       .1  ^^serted  ;  from  which,  some  attempt  to  de- 


172 

rive  an  argument  against  the  doctrine  of  the  Tri- 
nity, and  the  proper  Deity  of  Christ.  Says  the 
apostle  ;  "  One  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism." 
"  For  though  there  be,  that  are  called  gods,  wheth- 
er in  heaven,  or  on  earth,  (as  there  be  gods  many 
and  lords  many.)  But  to  us  there  is  but  one  God 
the  Father;  of  whom  are  all  things,  and  we  in  him  ; 
and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ;  by  whom  are  all  things, 
and  we  by  him."  Does  this  text  indicate,  that 
either  of  the  Persons  mentioned  in  it  is  not  the 
very  God  ?  By  no  means.  All  things  are  of  the 
Father,  and  by  Christ.  But  this  does  not  suggest 
that  those  two  Persons  mentioned  are  not  equally 
divine.  They  act  different  official  parts,  in  the 
economy  of  redemption.  But  each  is  God.  In 
other  sacred  passages  we  learn,  that  all  things 
were  made  by  Christ,  and  for  him  ;  and  by  him  all 
things  consist.  The  one  God  in  this  pastsage  is 
contrasted  with  the  many  gods  of  the  heathen  : 
And  the  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  with  the  many  pa- 
gan mediators  and  demigods.  But  nothing  is  im- 
plied in  the  text,  which  militates  against  there  be- 
ing a  Trinity  in  this  one  God  ;  and  nothing  against 
the  Mediator's  being  one  of  these  divine  Persons. 
It  teaches,  what  Paul  (in  view  of  the  mythology  of 
the  pagans)  asserts  to  Timothy  ;  "  There  is  one 
God  ;  and  ene  Mediator  between  God  and  man  ; 
the  man  Christ  Jesus."  The  heathen  owned  many 
gods  ;  and  many  mediators,  or  deified  heroes,  on 
whom  they  depended  to  plead  their  cause  with  the 
superior  gods.  The  Christians  own  but  one  of 
each  ;  one  God  ;  and  one  Mediator  ;  who  is  a 
man,  and  is  at  the  same  time  the  very  God,  as  well 
as  man.  Paul  says  nothing  here  in  opposition  to 
there  being  a  Trinity  in  Unity  in  this  one  God  of 
the  Christians  ;  and  nothing  in  opposition  to 
Christ's  being  one  with  God,  and  truly  the  infinite 


173 

Jehovah.  And  throughout  the  oracles  of  truth  \v<i 
are  assured  that  he  is  one  with  God,  and  is  the 
true  God. 

The  unity  of  God  is  asserted,  in  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments,  only  in  opposition  to  heatlien 
polytheism.  But  with  respect  to  a  metaphysical 
unity,  (or  such  an  unity  as  to  exclude  a  Trinity  of 
Persons)  the  scriptures  teacli  no  such  thing. 

Is  it  possible  then,  to  evade  the  conclusion  of 
Trinitarians,  which  lies  on  the  face  of  the  inspir- 
ed writings,  that  "  There  are  three,  who  bear  re- 
cord in  heaven  ;  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost  :  and  these  three  are  one.?*' 


15 


^* 


TESTIMONIES  OF  THE  PRIMITIVE  FATHERS  IN 
FAVOR  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  A  TRINITY  IN 
UNITY  IN  THE  GODHEAD  ;  AND  OF  THE  PROPER 
DIVINITY  OF  JESUS  CHRIST. 

We  are  to  call  no  man  father  upon  earth.  Our 
Christian  sentiments  must  in  all  things  rest  on  the 
sacred  oracles.  Bat  the  testimonies  of  the  fathers 
soon  after  the  commencement  of  the  Christian  era, 
relative  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  of  the 
Divinity  of  Christ,  must  amount  to  strong  circum- 
stantial evidence  relative  to  these  points.  "  If 
thou  knovvest  not,  O  thou  fairest  among  women, 
go  thy  way  forth  by  the  footsteps  of  the  flock."  In 
doubtful  points,  never  be  in  haste  to  adopt  novel 
sentiments. 

To  me  it  appears  very  evident,  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  in  Unity,  essentially  as  held  at  this 
day  by  Calvinistic  Trinitarians,  was  believed  from 
the  days  of  the  apostles.  That  this  was  the  senti- 
ment of  the  Church  in  the  three  first  centuries,  I 
shall  now  attempt  to  prove.  But  I  shall  previous- 
ly remark,  that  there  are  some  minor  and  non- 
essential differences  among  Trinitarians,  relative 
to  the  Three  in  the  Godhead.  On  so  deep  and 
sublime  a  subject,  they  have  said  some  ditferent 
things.  But  their  differences  do  not  materially 
affect  the  subject.     On  the  great  essential  points, 


176 

Trinitarians  have  agreed.  They  have  agreed,  that 
there  are  three  Persons  in  one  God,  in  some  mys- 
terious sense  ;  not  three  Gods  ;  nor  three  in  the 
same  sense,  in  which  they  are  one ;  but  in  some 
mysterious  sense  three  Persons  in  one  God  :  and 
that  this  is  the  key  stone  to  the  arch  of  gospel  sal- 
vation. Though  some  among  the  orthodox  have 
said  different  things  relativ^e  to  the  Sonship  oi* 
Christ ;  viewing  it  as  relating  to  his  divine  nature ; 
and  as  denoting  an  eternal  mode  of  existence  be- 
tween the  two  tirst  Persons  of  the  Trinity  ;  yet  all 
(I  believe)  have  agreed,  that  Christ  is  not  poste- 
rior, nor  inferior  to  the  Father  ;  that  he  never  had 
a  beginning  ;  that  he  is  really  God. 

To  take  an  occasion  then,  from  the  minor  differ- 
ences among  Trinitarians,  to  Justify  the  infinitely 
wider  difference,  of  denying  the  eternal  and  real 
Deity  of  Jesus  Christ,  is  very  unchristian.  To 
insinuate,  that  because  Trinitarians  differ  in  some 
things,  relative  to  the  Trinity  ;  therefore  with 
equal  propriety  a  man  may  take  the  liberty  so  far 
to  differ  from  them  all,  as  to  deny  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  and  the  proper  Deity  of  Christ,  looks 
hke  using  artifice  to  conceal,  or  extenuate  gross 
error.  It  does  not  follow,  thatbecause  Christians  say 
different  circumstantial  things,  concerning  Christ ; 
therefore  another  may,  with  no  greater  danger, 
deny  him.  There  is  an  infinite  difference  between 
having  some  different  conceptions,  relative  to  the 
mode  of  the  existence  of  the  three  Persons  in  the 
Godhead  ;  and  denying  that  there  are  three  Per- 
sons in  the  Godhead.  Ihe  Trinitarian  differences 
are  ail  within  the  bounds  of  the  great  gospel  truth, 
that  there  are,  in  some  mysterious  sense,  three  di- 
vine and  equal  Persons  in  the  one  God.  But  to 
deny  the  real  Deity  of  Christ,  and  the  personality 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  (in  the  opinion  of  Trinita- 


177 

rians)  not  only  to  leap  these  bounds,  but  to  sap  the 
foundation  of  gospel  grace. 

I  shall  now  adduce  some  testimonies  of  the  an- 
cients, in  favor  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and 
the  real  Deity  of  Jesus  Christ.  My  quotations 
will  be  from  Mosheim,  Milner's  Church  History, 
Bishop  Horsley's  Tracts,  and  from  Doctor  M'Far- 
land's  View  of  Heresies  ;  a  prime  authority  in 
which  is  "  Dr.  Jamieson's  excellent  vindication  of 
the  doctrine — of  the  primitive  faith  concerning  the 
Deity  of  Jesus  Christ.''  Bishop  Horsley  has 
shown,*  that  all  who  denied  the  Divinity  of  Christ, 
were,  in  the  first  ages,  treated  as  heretics. 

Ignatius,  bishop  of  Antioch,  who  immediately 
succeeded  the  apostles,  in  his  epistle  to  the  Ephe- 
sians,  warns  them,  "  to  beware  of  heresies  ;  to  be- 
lieve that  Jesus  Christ  is  God,  who  was  incaniatft: 
that  Christ  is  impassibltf,  as  he  is  God,  dLiAj"  ^th*- 
sible,as  he  is  man.''t  Ignatius  was  "a  pious. a  ven- 
erable man,  (says  Mosheim,)  who  was  the  dis- 
ciple and  familiar  friend  of  the  apostles."  We 
may  conclude  then,  that  he  could  not  have  mistak- 
en the  sentiments  of  the  apostles,  relative  to  the 
Deity  of  Christ.  And  according  to  Ignatius,  Christ 
had  two  natures.  He  was  really  God,  incapable 
of  suffering  ;  And  he  was  really  man,  capable  of 
suffering.  And  to  disbelieve  this,  with  him  was 
heresy.  Ignatius  called  Christ,  '•  the  eternal 
Word."  Did  he  then  believe  that  Christ  was  de- 
rived, and  began  to  exist  ?  To  the  faithful  he  said, 
"  Being  stones  of  the  Temple  of  your  Father,  pre- 
pared for  the  building  of  God,  lifted  up  in  heaven- 
ly places,  by  the  engine  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  is 
his  cross ;  using  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  cord. ''J  Here 

'^  Tracts,  page  184.  t  View  of  Heresies,  p.  69. 

I  Milner,  vol.  i.  page  159. 


178 

is  Trinity  in  unity.  His  comparing  the  Holy 
Ghost  to  a  cord,  was  a  mere  figure.  But  it  does 
not  indicate  his  behef,  that  the  work  of  sanctitica- 
tion,  in  the  hearts  of  Christians,  wiiich  places 
them  in  God's  temple,  is  wrought  without  the  per- 
sonal agency  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  must  be  a 
lame  cause,  that  would  suggest  such  a  thing,  Igna- 
tius knew  that  Christians  are  "  raised  up  together, 
and  made  to  sit  together  in  heavenly  places  in 
Christ  Jesus.''  And  he  well  knew,  that  this  re- 
surrection was  produced  by  an  almighty  Agent  ; 
and  not  by  a  th'-.g.  His  figure  of  the  cord  must 
have  related  to  the  stipulated  part  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  in  the  scheme  of  grace,  sanctifying  God's 
chosen.  Let  the  writers  of  the  martyrdom  of  Igna- 
^pv^  ''fho  must  have  known  and  approved  of  his 
^"^.,.^.^©1113  of  the  Trinit}'^  as  well  as  those  of  the 
apostles,  testify.  They  close  their  narrative  thus  ; 
^'  Christ  Jesus,  our  Lord  :  by  whom,  and  with 
whom  all  glory  and  power  be  to  the  Father,  with 
the  blessed  Spirit  forever.  Amen."  Here,  at  so 
early  a  period,  is  a  complete  Doxology  of  equal 
and  undivided  praise  to  each  person  in  the  triune 
God.  Tiiere  can  be  no  fair  evasion  of  such  testi- 
mony as  this. 

Justin  Martyr,  of  the  second  century,  in  his 
book  against  Trypho  the  Jew,  asserted  the  Divi- 
nity of  Christ.  And  Trypho  replied  ;  "  That 
Christ  should  be  God,  before  the  world  began, 
and  afterward  be  born,  though  not  as  other  men, 
seemed  to  him.  not  only  a  paradox,  but  foolish.''* 
In  the  View  of  Heresies,  we  are  informed  again  of 
Justin  Martyr,  that  he  "  acknowledged  the  Chris- 
tians of  his  day  worshipped  three  Persons,  (in  God,) 
but  asserted   that  this  was  the  common  faith,  and 

*  View  of  Heresies,  p.  69. 


179 

had  been  so  from  the  apostles'  days*  Pie  said  also, 
that  a  belief  of  the  Trinity  was  required  of  the 
most  rude  and  illiterate,  in  order  to  their  admission 
into  the  Church."  Justin  Martyr  (Bishop  iJorsley 
informs)  "  expressly  alludes  to  the  Unitaiiatjs,  as 
blasphemers  of  Christ  :"  And  lie  speaks  of  Christ 
as  the  God  of  Abraham.  Isaac  and  Jacob. 

Clement,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  says,  •'  He,  (the 
Word.)  is  both  God  and  man."  And  speakiuj^  of 
God  and  the  Word,  he  says,  "  They  are  both  one, 
that  is  to  say,  one  God.'"^  Here  he  seems  to  distin- 
guish between  their  being  one  Person,  ajid  one 
God.     They  are  two  Persons  ;  but  one  God. 

Du  Pin  informs,  that  Iren^us,  of  the  second 
century,  wrote  against  heresies  ;  in  which  work, 
''  almost  as  often  as  he  speaks  of  the  Word,  he 
establishes  his  divinity,  eternity,  and  equality  with 
the  Father."!  Irena»us  exhibited  a  creed,  of  the 
general  behef  of  the  Christians  of  that  age  ;  in 
which  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  as  fully  con- 
tained, as  in  the  Nicene  creed.  In  it  Christ  is 
called  "  our  God."  And  much  more  is  said  in  this 
creed  upon  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  than 
is  said  in  the  Nicene  creed. |  Irenaeus  again  says  ; 
"  Man  was  formed  in  the  beginning  by  the  hands 
of  God,  i.  e.  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
With  him  then,  the  Son  was  God  ;  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  God  ;  who  with  the  Father  make  three 
Persons  in  one  God. 

Doctor  Priestley  himself  acknowledges,  that 
from  the  time  of  Justin,  in  the  second  century,  to 
Athanasias  in  the  fourth,  all  the  authors,  one  only 
excepted,   were  what  he  was  pleased  to   style, 


*  View  of  Heresies,  p.  69.  t  Ibid.  p.  70, 

I'  See  the  creed  in  View  of  Heresies,  p.  76. 


180 

"  Platonizing  Trinitarians."     A  testimony    fully 
in  our  favor.* 

Melito,  bishop  of  Sardis,  says,  "  We  are  wor- 
shippers of  one  God,  who  is  before  all,  and  in  all 
in  his  Christ,  who  is  truly  God,  the  eternal  Woid." 

*  Doctor  Priestley  and  others  have  often  insinuated,  that  the 
primitive  Christians  derived  thfir  views,  concerning  a  Trinity 
in  the  Godhead,  I'rom  the  philosophy  of  Plato.  It  is  indeed 
worthy  of  remark,  that  while  thoe  Christians  derived  their 
sentiments  of  the  divine  Trinity  from  the  sacred  oracles,  the 
ancient  schools  of  heathen  philosophy  held  something,  which 
resembled  this  doctrine.  But  this  is  so  far  from  being  to  the 
discredit  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ;  that,  nghtly 
considered,  it  is  m^ch  in  its  f«vor.  Ti.e  highest  probability  is, 
that  the  above  idea  in  those  heathen  schools  was  derived  and 
transmitted  from  ancient  revelation  made  to  the  patriarchs  ; 
that  It  was  a  tradition  corrupted,  and  more  or  less  combined 
witu  idolatry  ;  but  originating  ircm  heaven,  in  early  days, 
while  men  had  the  true  kuov/ledge  of  God. 

The  three  divine  principles,  held  in  the  schools  of  Plato,  be- 
fore the  Christian  era,  did  not  originate  with  that  philosopher. 
The  Platonists  held  themselves  to  be  only  expounders  of  an- 
cient doctrines.  Their  triad,  or  doctrine  of  three,  (T'agathon, 
Goodness,  Nous,  Intelligence,  and  Pseuche,  V^itality,)  was  traced 
from  Plato  to  Parmedides ;  from  him  to  the  masters  of  the  Py- 
thagoraean  sect  ;  from  them  to  Orpheus,  the  first  of  the  Gre- 
cian mystagogues ;  and  from  him  to  the  Egyptian  priests, 
where  was  the  foundation  of  the  Orphic  Theology. t  In  the 
Theology  of  ancient  Persia  and  Chaldea  were  similar  ideas  of 
a  triple  principle  ;  as  were  also,  in  after  date,  among  the  Ro- 
mans. This  sentiment  was  transmitted  toRome  from  their 
Trojan  ancestors.  It  was  brought  into  Italy  from  Phrygia. 
Into  the  latter  place  it  had  been  introduced  by  Dardanus,  about 
nine  centuries  after  the  flood.  Dardanus  received  it  from  Sa- 
mothrace.  There  the  persons,  constituting  the  three  to  be 
worshipped,  were  known  by  the  Hebrew  word  Cahirim^Mirrhty 
Ones;  from  the  very  root  of  the  word  used  in  the  Hebrew 
Bible  lOT  God,  in  Gen.  xlix.  24  ;  and  Ps  cxxxii.  2.  This  old 
tradition  therefore,  it  is  most  higlily  probable,  was  derived  from 
divine  revelation  made  to  the  patriarchs,  in  most  ancient  times. 
The  Latin  Penates  was  of  similar  import,  or  probably  from 
the  some  origin  ; — an  idolatrous  corruptien  of  ancient  glorious 
truth,  relative  to  the  divine  Persons  in  the  Godhead.— As  also 

t  Bishop  Horsley's  Tracts,  p.  43. 


181 

Athenagoras  against  the  charge  of  the  pagans. 
A,  D.  177,  says,  '•  Who  is  not  riiled  with  admira- 
tion, that  we,  who  declare  God  the  Father,  and 
God  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  showing  both 
the  power  of  their  unity,  and  the  distinciioa  of 
their  order,  should  be  called  perverse  atheists." 
This  remark  is  found  in  an  apoiog}  for  the  Chris- 
tians. It  therefore  must  be  viewed  as  containing 
the  sense  of  the  Christians  of  that  day.  And  what 
more,  than  is  contained  in  this  sentence,  do  pre- 
sent Trinitarians  wish  to  say/  Again:  This  author, 
speaking  of  the  contemplations  of  the  people  of 
God,  at  that  age,  says,  they  contemplated  ''  What 
union  the  Son  hath  with  the  Father  ;  what  com- 
munion the  Father  hath  w^ith  the  Son  ;  what  the 
Spirit  is  ;  and  what  the  union  and  distinction  are 

the  worship  paid  in  R.ome  to  the  triad,  Jupiter,  Juno,  and  Mi- 
nerva. This  sentiment  probably  had  its  origin  from  that  of 
the  primitive  three  Mighty  Ones,  in  Samothrace  ;  the  worship 
of  whoui  was,  according  to  Eusebius,  established  in  that  island, 
before  the  days  of  x\braham. 

Bishop  Horsley  has  shown,  that  some  traces  of  the  notion  of 
a  Trinity  did  indeed  appear  in  all  the  ancient  schools  of  phi- 
losophy ;  and  in  many  of  the  abominable  rites  of  paganism. 
The  Platonists  called  this  sentiment  Theoparadotos  Theologia  ; 
a  Theology  given  from  God.  Now,  how  came  such  a  notion, 
(relative  to  an  original  Three  to  be  worshipped)  to  be  enter- 
tained -o  extensively,  among  ancient  heathen  ?  The  most  prob- 
able conjecture  is,  that  they  received  it  by  tradition  from  Noah 
and  his  sons,  (relative  to  the  divine  Trinity)  who  received  it 
from  God.  A  considerable  part  of  the  heathen  mythology  may 
be  traced  back,  through  the  bewildered  imaginations  of  idola- 
ters, to  doctrines,  rites,  and  events,  divinely  directed  ;  and  af- 
terward corrupted  by  wicked  men.  The  triad  principle  run- 
ning through  so  great  a  part  of  the  ancient  pagan  theologies,  is 
an  indication  of  no  inconsiderable  moment,  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  in  God  was  taught  in  express  revelation  from  hea- 
ven, previous  to  the  writings  of  Moses.  This  is  not  to  be  view- 
ed (as  too  many  heretical  writers  have  laboured  to  represent  it) 
to  the  discredit  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  Chris- 
tians never  learned  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  from  pagans. 
But  pagans  learned  it  from  ancient  divine  revelation. 
16 


182 


of  such  so  united,  the  Spirit,  the  Son.  and  the  Fa- 
ther." Is  it  not  here  evident,  that  the  Christians 
of  the  second  century  viewed  the  three  in  the 
Godliead  as  Persons,  divine  and  equal  ?  Those 
Christians  studied,  what  was  the  union  in  the  God- 
head ?  w^hat  their  connmunion  ?  and  what  was  the 
distinction  of  such  so  united?  Surely  then,  the  Holy 
Ghost,  in  their  view,  as  well  as  each  of  the  oth- 
ers, was  a  Person.  And  their  queries  were  the 
very  same,  which  Trinitarian  sentiments  do  occa- 
sion. But  had  the  sentiments  of  those  Christians 
been  such  concerning  the  Three  in  one  God.  as 
some  now  call  on  us  to  believe,  they  would  have 
occasioned  no  such  researches.  For  these  Chris- 
tians might  have  comprehended  the  ideas  of  one 
God  the  Father,  of  his  natural  dependent  Son,  and 
of  his  fulness  or  energy  personified,  as  easily  as 
they  rright  a  sum  in  plain  addition.  But  the  a- 
bove  account  given  of  the  Church,  in  the  second 
century,  and  while  they  did  retain  their  primitive 
purity,  clearly  shows,  that  Trinity  in  Unity  in 
God,  did  constitute  a  prime  article  in  their  creed. 

Pliny,  in  his  w^ell  known  letter  to  Trajan,  de- 
clared, that  the  Christians — sung  hymns  to  Christ, 
as  to  God.  Hierocles,  a  heathen,  charged  the 
Christians,  that  '•  because  of  a  few  miracles,  they 
proclaimed  Jesus  to  be  God."  This  was  a  com- 
mon charge  of  the  heathen  against  the  Christians, 
that  they  worshipped  Christ  as  the  true  God. 

Du  Pin,  the  celebrated  writer  upon  the  primi- 
tive ages,  in  his  summary  of  the  doctrines  of  the 
Church,  in  the  three  first  centuries,  says,  "  They 
acknowledged  a  Trinity  of  Persons  in  the  God- 
head, the  eternity  of  the  Word,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost.  They  maintained,  that  the  Word  was  from 
all  eternity  in  God.  as  a  Person  distinct  from  the 
Father  ;  that  be  made,  himself  man  to  save  the 


183 

T^orld,  which  was  lost  by  sin  in  the  first  Adam. — . 
All  the  fathers  (he  adds)  of  whom  we  have  spoken, 
make  profession  of  this  faith,  and  assure  us,  that 
this  was  the  doctrine,  which  all  the  churches  in  the 
world  have  received  from  the  apostles  ;  and  that 
it  was  necessary  to  believe  it,  in  order  to  become  a 
Christian."* 

Of  Novation,  who  lived  A,  D.  250,  Milnersays, 
"  The  Christian  faith  he  is  allowed  to  have  preser- 
ved in  soundness.  In  truth  there  is  extant  a  trea- 
tise of  his,  on  the  Trinity,  one  of  the  most  regular 
and  accurate,  that  is  to  be  found  among  the  an- 
cients. It  is  astonishing  (he  adds)  that  any  should 
ascribe  the  ideas  of  the  Trinity  mainly  to  the  Ni- 
cene  fathers.  We  have*repeatedly  seen  proofs  of 
the  doctrine  from  the  apostles'  days,  being  held 
distinctly  in  all  its  parts.  This  treatise  of  Nova- 
tion may  be  added  to  the  list.  I  do  not  know 
(continues  this  author)  how  to  abridge  it  better^ 
than  to  refer  the  reader  to  the  Athanasian  creed. 
The  Trinity  in  Unity ;  and  the  Godhead  and  man- 
hood of  Christ,  in  one  Person,  is  not  more  plainly 
to  be  found  in  that  creed,  than  in  this  cotemporary 
of  Cyprian. "t 

Of  Tertullian,  in  the  second  century,  writing 
against  Praxias,  an  Anti-trinitarian,  Milner  ob- 
serves, "  He  appears  to  have  had  very  sound  views 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  He  speaks  of  the 
Trinity  in  Unity,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost, 
yet  one  God.  He  speaks  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  as 
both  God  and  man ;  Son  of  man  :  and  Son  of  God; 
and  called  Jesus  Christ.  He  speaks  also  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  the  Comforter,  the  Sanctifier  of  the 
faith  of  those,  who  believe  in  the  Father,  Son.  and 
Holy  Ghost.     He  observes,  that  this  rule  of  faith 

*  View  of  Heresies,  p.  77.     i   Vol.  1.  p.  337. 


184 

had  obtained  from  the  beginning  of  the  gospel, 
antecedent  to  any  former  heretics  ;  much  more  to 
Praxias,  who  was  of  yesterday."*  For  myself,  I 
should  be  very  loath  to  espouse  a  cause,  which  re- 
quired, that  such  testimony  as  this  should  be  de- 
stroyed. We  learn  from  it,  that  the  very  views  of 
present  Trinitarians  were  maintained  by  the  whole 
church  m  the  second  century,  as  having  been  re- 
ceived from  Christ,  and  his  apostles  ;  and  that  to 
deny  these  views,  with  them  was  heresy.  Tertul- 
lian  again  says,  (as  Bishop  Horsley  has  quoted 
him,)  •'  Simple  persons,  (not  to  call  them  ignorant 
and  idiots,)  who  always  make  the  majority  of 
(nomi  jScI)  believers  ; — because  the  rule  of  faith  it- 
self carries  us  away  from  the  many  gods  of  the 
heathen,  to  the  one  true  God,  not  understanding 
that  the  one  God  is  indeed  to  be  believed,  but 
ivith  an  economy  of  a  Godhead,  startle  at  the  e- 
eonom)  .  They  take  it  for  granted,  that  the  num- 
ber and  disposition  of  the  Trinity  is  a  division  of 
the  Unity.  They  pretend  that  two,  and  even 
three  (Gods)  are  preached  by  us  ;  and  imagine  that 
they  themselves  are  the  worshippers  of  one  God'* 
The  sense  of  the  above  passage  is  this.  Some 
people,  very  ignorant  and  stupid,  as  to  divine 
things,  (such  as  are  a  great  part,  who  pretend  to 
believe  the  gospel)  stumble  at  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity.  They  are  not  ready  to  admit,  that  the 
one  God  of  the  Bible  is  to  be  received  as  having 
an  economy  of  three  Persons.  This  looks  to  them 
like  holding  to  a  plurality  of  Gods.  They  even 
pretend  that  we  preach  three  Gods  :  while  they 
hold  to  but  one.  Truly  the  case  in  the  days  of 
Tertullian,  or  in  the  second  century,  was  not  very 
dissimilar  to  that  of  the  present  day. 

*  Vol.  1.  p.  271. 


185 

Clement,  bishop  of  Rome,  cotemporary  wilit 
the  apostles,  and  whose  name,  Paul  assures  us, 
was  ••  in  the  book  of  hfe  ;"  said,  "  Have  we  not 
all  one  God,  one  Christ,  one  Spirit  of  grace  pour- 
ed upon  us  V 

The  noted  Dionjsius,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  in 
the  middle  of  the  third  century,  says,  "Thus  we 
understand  the  indivisible  Unity  of  the  Trinity; 
and  we  comprehend  the  Trinity  in  the  Unity; 
without  any  diminution.''* 

Theophilus,  the  celebrated  bishop  of  Antioch, 
on  the  passage  of  God  saying,  ''  Let  us  maJce 
man,"  says,  "  It  was  to  no  other,  that  he  (God) 
said.  Let  us  make,  than  to  his  own  Word,  and  his 
own  Wisdom."  ''  In  the  language  of  Theophilus 
(says  bishop  Horsley)  and  of  the  best  writers  of 
the  age,  the  Word  and  the  Wisdom  here,  are  used 
as  proper  names  of  the  second  and  third  Person  in 
the  Trinity.  This  assertion  of  Theophilus,  that 
God  spake  to  no  other  person,  than  to  his  Word 
and  his  Spirit ;  is  an  assertion  that  God  spake  to 
persons  of  no  less  dignity,  than  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost."  The  Jewish  expositors  of  that 
age  contended,  that  God  spake  those  words,  ("Let 
us  make  man,")  to  Angels.  And  Theophilus  con- 
tended, that  God  did  not  speak  them  to  Angels : 
but  to  the  other  two  Persons  in  the  Trinity.! 

Origin,  in  the  third  century,  was  a  most  noted 
character.  And  after  all  that  has  been  said  by 
some  to  the  contrary,  it  is  evident  to  my  mind, 
that  he  was  a  real  Trinitarian.  Some  inform,  that 
Origin  held  to  only  an  allegorical  Trinity  ;  or  that 
the  Son  is  in  God,  what  reason  is  in  man;  and  that 
the  Holy  Ghost  is  nothing  more,  than  the  divine 
energy,  or  active   force,  personified.     And  it  has 

*  Milner,  Vol.  1.  p.  451.     tTraots.  p.  49. 
16* 


186 

been  insinuated,  that  here  in  fact  is  the  rise  of  our 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ;  that  it  originated  in  Or- 
igin's allegorical  Trinity  ;  that  those  Perfections 
of  the  one  Person  of  God  came,  in  an  age  of  er- 
ror, to  he  transformed,  in  the  human  imagination, 
into  real  personalities  in  God,  and  confiraied  as 
sitch  by  an  erroneous  council  I  All  this  has  been 
rontidently  suggested. 

I  believe  this  suggestion  to  be  without  founda- 
tion. We  iiave  found  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
throughout  tlie  sacred  oracles.  And  we  have 
seen  this  doctrine  held,  as  now  held  by  Trinitari- 
ans, long  before  the  age  of  Origin,  and  from  the 
days  of  the  apostles.  I  much  doubt  the  correct- 
ness of  Origin''s  having  held  to  such  an  alle- 
gorical Trinitj'.  We  indeed  tind  one  iiint  of  it 
in  Mosheim  :  (vol.  i  p.  334.)  ]Not  when  treating  of 
Origin  ;  (for  no  such  account  is  given  of  him 
there ;)  but  when  treating  of  the  contentions, 
which  arose  in  Africa  in  the  fourth  century,  long 
after  Origin's  death.  Here  Mosheim  for  once 
says,  "  In  Egypt,  and  the  adjacent  countries,  the 
greater  part  embraced  in  this,  as  well  as  in  other 
matters,  tlie  opinion  of  Origin  ;  who  held,  that 
the  Son  was  in  God,  what  reason  is  in  man  ;  and 
ihat  the  Holy  Ghost  is  nothing  more,  than  the  di- 
vine energy  or  active  force."  I  will  state  my 
reasons  for  disbeheving  this  account  given  of  Ori- 
gin. And  these  reasons  may  throw  further  hght 
on  our  subject. 

1.  Such  an  idea  concerning  Origin  does  not 
appear,  in  the  accounts  given  of  him,  by  Mosheim, 
Milner,  H.  Adams,  nor  any  author  1  have  ever 
seen,  except  in  the  above  hint  in  Mosheim,  upon 
events  long  after  Origin's  death,  and  when  speak- 
ing of  the  African  contentions. 

2.  The  claiming  of  Origin,  by  those  Africans, 
as  their  precursor  in   their  peculiar  sentiments. 


187 

might  be  enough  to  lay  a  foundation  for  the  histo- 
rian, when  speaking  of  those  contentions,  to  make 
the  foregoing  remark.  He  might  speak  it  as  he 
did,  upon  their  assertion  of  it.  And  that  they  did 
thus  claim  Origin,  I  make  no  doubt.     For 

3.  Origin,  on  account  of  his  fame,  was  erroneous- 
ly claimed  by  various  of  the  sectarians  of  the  fourth 
century.  So  Mosheim  himself  informs,  vol.  i.  page 
366.  "  The  Arians,  who  were  sagacious  in  search- 
ing for  succours  on  all  sides,  to  maintain  their  sect. 
affirmed  that  Origin  had  adopted  their  opinion. 
But  several  writers  of  the  first  learning  and  note, 
(adds  Mosheim)  opposed  this  report,  and  endea- 
vored to  vindicate  the  honor  of  their  master  from 
these  injurious  insinuations."  The  most  eminent 
of  these  apologists  for  Origin  was  Eusebius.  bishop 
of  Cesarea,  as  appears  from  his  learned  work,  en- 
titled, •'  An  apology  for  Origin."  This  Eusebius 
himself  held  to  a  distinct  personality,  and  to  the 
eternity,  of  Christ.  Would  he  then  have  under- 
taken thus  for  Origin,  had  Origin  Ijeen  so  essen- 
tially ditierent  from  himself  in  this  particular  ? 
Mosheim  says  again.*  "  RutRnus,  in  his  apology 
for  Origin,  alleges,  that  bis  writings  were  mahcious- 
ly  falsified  by  the  heretics;  and  that  in  consequence 
thereof,  many  errors  were  attributed  to  him,  which 
he  did  not  adopt.  And  that  the  opinions,  in  which 
he  difiered  from  the  Church,  were  proposed  by  him 
only  as  curious  conjectures."  The  Nitrian  monks 
were  ordered  to  give  up  the  productions  of  Ori- 
J.n.  They  refused  ;  alleging,  "  that  the  passages, 
in  the  writings  of  this  holy  and  venerable  man, 
which  seemed  to  swerve  from  the  truth,  were  in- 
serted in  them  by  ill-designing  heretics  ;  and  that 
the  few  things,  worthy  of  censure,  were  not  suffi- 
cient to  justify   the  condemnation  of  the  rest."t 

^-  Vol.  I .  p.  233.  t  Mosheira,  vol.  1.  p.  318. 


188 

Bishop  Ilorsley  asserts  (he  same  things  relative  t# 
Origin,  in  his  Tracts. 

4.  It  is  but  fair,  that  Origin  should  speak  for 
himself  upon  this  point.  In  Ruffinus  upon  Origin, 
we  have  these  words  of  Origin  ;  "  Therefore  con- 
cerning God;  i.  e.  concerning  the  Father,  and  the 
Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost.''  Let  us  read  this  sen- 
tence of  Origin  in  the  language  of  the  aforenoted 
sentiment  attributed  to  him  by  those  Africans. 
^^  Therefore  concerning  God,  i.  e.  concerning  that 
part  of  God,  which  is  aside  from  his  reason  •,  and 
concerning  his  reason  ;  and  his  energy,  or  active 
force."  Could  this  be  the  meaning  of  that  noted 
father  ?  Again.  Origin  says;  ''  These  things  saith 
the  Lord,  who  is,  and  who  was,  and  who  is  to  come, 
the  Almighty.  For  who  is  the  Almighty,  that  is  to 
come,  but  Christ  ?"*  By  this  Almighty,  who  is  to 
come,  could  Origin  moan  only  that  in  God,  which 
reason  is  in  man  ?  Vile  absurdity  !  Origin  against 
Cclsus  says,  "  Celsus  thinks  there  is  no  other  Divi- 
nity in  the  human  body,  which  Christ  carried 
about,  than  in  Homers  fables."  And  again.  "  In 
that  we  do  sharply  accuse  the  Jews,  (the  infidel 
Jews  after  the  apostolic  age)  that  they  did  not  be- 
lieve their  own  prophets,  who  in  many  places  did 
testify  that  he  (Christ)  is  God,  God,  and  the  Fa- 
ther of  all."t  Again.  Celsus  said,  the  Christians 
worshipped  an  upstart.  Origin  acknowledged  they 
worshipped  Jesus  ;  but  denies  that  they  worship- 
ped a  mere  man,  or  one  of  the  ministers  of  God. 
He  declared  Christ's  unity  with  the  Father  ;  aad 
adds  ;  "  Therefore  we  worship  one  God,  the  Fa- 
ther and  the  Son.''  Speaking  of  the  heavenly  hosts 
crying  "  Holy,  holy,  holy,"  Isai.  vi.  3  ;  Origin 
says,  "  They  are  not  content  to  say  it  once  or 

*  Con.  Ma^.  vol.  VI.  p.  316.        t  View  of  Heresies,  p.  70. 


189 

twice  ;  but  take  the  perfect  number  of  the  Trinitj, 
thereby  to  declare  the  manifold  hoHness  of  God  ; 
which  is  a  repeated  intercommunion  of  a  threefold 
hohness  ;  the  holiness  of  the  Father,  the  holiness 
of  the  only  begotten  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."* 
Do  those  things  look  like  Origin's  holding  to  the 
aforenoted  allegorical  Trinity  ?  They  speak  no 
such  language  ;  nor  do  they  admit  of  such  a  sen- 
timent. 

Mosheim,  in  a  note,  intimates,  that  Alexander, 
bishop  of  Alexandria,  the  antagonist  of  Arius,  fol- 
lowed the  manner  of  Origin  in  explaining  the  doc- 
trine of  the  three  Persons.  Hence  one  late  writer 
labors  to  prove,  that  Alexander,  and  his  successor 
Athanasius,  both  held  only  to  that  allegorical  Tri- 
nity before  noted,  as  ascribed  to  Origin.  But 
surely,  if  Alexander,  and  his  successor  Athanasius, 
agreed  with  Origin,  the  latter  held  to  more  than 
an  allegorical  Trinity.  We  cannot  doubt  but 
Alexander  and  Athanasius  were  agreed  upon  this 
point.  But  of  Alexander,  Mosheim  informs,  that 
he  "  maintained  among  other  things,  that  the  Son 
was  not  only  of  the  same  eminence  and  dignity, 
but  also  of  the  same  essence  with  the  Father."  Is 
this  holding,  that  the  Son  is  the  same  in  God,  that 
reason  is  in  man  ?  It  is  making  Christ  a  real  Per- 
son, distinct  from,  and  equal  with  the  Father. 
Arius  understood  Alexander  thus.  Hence  he  rose 
in  opposition.  Arius  held  that  Christ  had  a  be- 
ginning ;  that  he  was  created  ;  that  he  was  a  kind 
of  middle  link  between  God  and  Angels.  Alexan- 
der opposed  this  scheme,  as  fatal  heresy.  Arius, 
writing  to  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  after  sadly  com- 
plaining of  persecution,  (a  complaint  most  common 
with  heretics  !)  he  undertakes  to  give  a  specimen 

■^    Jones,  p.  105. 


19Q 

of  Alexander's  preaching  upon  the  point  of  their 
controversy  ;  or  concerning  the  Deity  of  Christ  ; 
"  Who  pubhcly  says,  (says  Arias  of  Alexander,) 
Always  God,  always  the  Son  :  At  the  same  time 
the  Father  ;  at  the  same  time  the  Son  :  The  Son 
co-exists  with  God,  without  being  begotten  :  He  is 
always  begotten  ;  yet  unbegotten  :  God  does  not 
precede  the  Son  in  thought,  not  for  a  moment  : 
Always  God  ;  always  the  Son  :" — No  doubt  Arius 
talks  here  like  one  in  a  party  pet.  But  much  we 
learn  from  this  specimen  relative  to  the  real  senti- 
ments of  Alexander;  and  the  orthodox  of  that  day. 
We  learn,  that  with  him,  Christ  was  a  distinct  Per- 
son from  the  Father ;  and  yet  is  truly  God  :  That 
though  he  is  said  to  have  been  begotten  ;  yet  it  is 
not  that  his  Divinity  was  ever  produced  ;  that  the 
Father  does  not  precede  the  Son,  not  a  moment  ; 
that  their  two  Persons  were  from  eternity.  All  this 
Arius  understood  his  antagonist  to  preach  ;  and  he 
knew  his  sentiments.  Arius  proceeds  to  inform, 
that  when  some  said  (meaning  his  own  party)  that 
God,  who  had  no  beginning,  existed  before  the 
Son,  they  were  condemned. 

I  shall  here  digress  a  little  from  the  point  in 
hand.  We  here  learn,  from  Arius  himself,  the 
very  ground,  on  which  his  heresy  was  condemned. 
It  was  because  he  held  that  God  existed  before  the 
Son  ;  the  Son  being  produced  and  dependent.  If 
any  doubt  whether  this  statement  be  correct,  let 
Arius  himself  decide  it.  He  adds,  "  We  are  per- 
secuted, because  we  say  the  Son  hath  a  beginning.' 
Here  then  was  the  very  point  of  the  Arian  con- 
troversy. It  vvas  not, as  some  would  now  insinuate, 
simply  coucernirjg  ihe  mode  of  the  production  of 
the  divi.ie  Person  of  Christ  ;  whether  he  was 
created  ;  or  begotten  ?  as  thouf^h  both  sides  grant- 
ed that  he  was  produced,  and  dependent  ;  but  one 


191 

said,  that  he  was  created  ;  and  the  other,  that  he 
wa.-  actaally  derived,  as  a  Son  from  God.  Let  in- 
terested men  insinuate  what  they  will,  this  was  not 
the  great  point  of  controversy.  It  was  only  a  se- 
condary object  ;  a  turn  which  the  controversy 
took.  But  the  controversy  itself  was  this  :  Did 
the  divine  Person  of  Christ  have  a  beginning  ? 
Arius  affirmed.  Alexander,  and  all  the  orthodox 
denied.  And  Arius  complained,  that  when  his 
followers  said,  God,  who  had  no  beginning,  existed 
before  the  Son,  they  were  condemned  :  And  adds; 
••  We  are  persecuted,  because  we  say,  the  Son  hath 
a  beginning." 

Is  it  not  a  fact  then,  that  all,  who  hold  that  the 
divine  Person  of  Christ  had  a  beginning,  whether 
they  hold  with  Arius,  that  Christ  was  created  ;  or 
are  far  more  absurd, and  say,  he  vv'as  derived;  hold 
to  the  very  essence  of  Arianism  ?  1  see  not  how 
the}'  can  escape  the  charge.  They  may  say  plaus- 
ible things  in  their  own  favor  ;  and  may  deceive 
the  unwary  with  an  idea,  that  they  do  not  much, 
if  any,  ditfer  from  the  ancient  Christian  fathers. 
But  they  essentially  ditfer  in  the  material  points^ 
the  eternity,  and  the  real  Deity  of  Christ.  Inas- 
much as  some  of  the  orthodox  have  held  to  an 
eternal  generation  of  Christ,  while  yet  they  held, 
that  he  was  not  posterior  nor  inferior  to  the  Father, 
a  play  upon  words  may  seem  to  derive  counte- 
nance from  them,  in  favor  of  the  idea  of  an  actual 
derivation  of  the  Person  of  Christ  from  the  Father. 
But  it  is  well  known,  that  while  the  above  men- 
tioned orthodox  supposed  Christ's  Sonship  related 
to  his  divine  nature,  they  conceived  at  the  same 
time  that  it  was  by  an  eternal  generation,  which 
indicated  only  an  eternal  mode  of  existence.  They 
at  the  same  time  did  hold,  as  an  essential  point, 
that  Christ  was  coequal  and  coeternal  with  the 


192 

Father.*  Arius  held,  that  he  was  not  thus  ;  but 
had  a  beginning.  The  orthodox  combatted  his  er- 
ror, as  fatal.  In  doing  this,  they  spake  of  the  Deitj 
ofCnrist  as  being  begotten  of  the  Father,  as  being 
of  his  essence,  light  ol  light,  and  very  God  of  very 
God.  This  was  their  manner  of  treating  the  sub- 
ject ;  having  conceived  that  the  Sonshjp  of  Christ 
related  to  his  divine  nature  ;  and  that  they  must 
talk  in  a  wa},  that  was  consistent  with  this.  But 
while  they  talked  thus,  we  know  they  did  not  hold, 
that  Christ  was  actually,  or  at  any  period,  derived 
from  God  :  but  that  he  was  eternally  the  \ery 
God.  Now  therefore,  to  turn  their  own  language, 
w^hich  they  tiius  used,  against  themselves,  and  in 
favor  of  a  literal  derivation  of  Christ  from  God, 
and  of  his  iotinite  posteriority  and  inferiority  to 
the  Fciiher,  when  at  the  same  time  we  do  know 
their  iiieaning,  is  most  unchristian  !  It  is  to  set 
them  Lip,  against  their  will,  as  advocates  for  the 
very  sentiment,  against  which  they  bore  their  unit- 
ed and  roost  fervent  testimoiiy  !  A  line  of  conduct, 
which  must  be  pronounced  insulierable.  It  is 
really  a  propagation  of  perverse   falsehood  !  An 

*  It  appears  indeed  not  certain  what  the  primitive  Chris- 
tians meant  by  the  generation  ol  Christ.  Bishop  Horsley  says, 
that  when  Arius  stated  to  Alexander  what  he  disbelieved  ;  one 
point  was,  "  that  the  Son,  previously  existing,  was  afterward 
begotten."  Bishop  Horsley  supposed  this  point,  which  Arius 
demed,  to  have  been  iht  sentiment  of  the  Church  at  that  day. 
Ari'is,  writing  to  Eusebias,  taxes  Alexander  as  preaching,  "  that 
the  Son  IS  coexistent  with  God,  without  genf  ration."  The 
Bishop  adds, "  It  appears  that  it  vvas  th<-  language  ol  the  ortho- 
dox, ai  the  time  of  the  Nicene  council,  that  the  existence  of  the 
Son  was  pncr  lO  his  gf  ueratiiai.  and  mdependent  ol  it  ; — coeval 
indeed  with  the  eternal  Father"  Athenagoras  says,"  The  ge- 
neration of  the  Son,  can  beouly  a  figurative  genertxtion."  Later 
writers,  (the  Bishop  furtner  ruHes)  speak  ol  an  eternal  genera- 
tion. "  which  last  (he  adds)  is  only  a  name  for  the  unknown 
maaner,  in  which  the  Son's  e2U3tence  is  connected  with  the 
Father's. 


195 

amazingtestinrionymay,in  this  way.be  adduced  frona 
the  ancient  Trinitarians,  and  modern  likewise^ 
agaiiist  themselves;  and  in  favor  of  the  very  point, 
which  they  did  reprobate  as  fatal  heresy.  Andia 
this  way,  maltitudes  of  the  uninformed  may  be  led 
into  fatal  error,  while  they  imagine  they  are  follow- 
ing the  footsteps  of  the  flock.  But  I  appeal  to 
every  one,  who  has  read  church  history,  that  the 
ancients,  by  their  generation  of  Christ's  Divinity, 
did  not  mean,  that  he  ever  was  actually  derived  ; 
but  was  eternal,  equal  with  God,  and  was  God. 
And  it  is  a  perversion  of  their  k;iown  sentiments, 
to  take  their  words  to  justify  a  sentiment  of  our 
own,  that  Christ,  in  his  highest  nature,  is  the  Son 
of  God.  by  having  been,  at  some  period  before 
creation,  literally  derived  from  God,  and  being  de- 
pendent on  him.  This  is  to  revive  the  essence  of 
the  Arian  controversy,  which  was  that  Christ  had 
a  beginning.* 

*  The  above  base  line  of  conduct  has  been  too  often  indulg- 
ed by  tho?e,  who  deny  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  They  have 
laboured  beyond  measure  to  believe  and  insinuate,  that  their 
faith  IS  only  the  faith  of  ancient  Christians.  This  was  a  dai-- 
ling^  point  with  Doctor  Priestley.  Great  exertions  he  made,  to 
ascertain,  that  his  unitarian  faith  was  supported  by  good  and 
able  characters  among  the  ancients  ;  particularly  in  tha  first 
century.  These  exertions,  Bishop  Horsley  has  reviewed,  and 
shown  to  be  most  perverse.  That  most  able  scholar,  critic,  and 
divine,  has  fairly  convicted  Dr.  Priestley  of  mistranslating,  of 
misrepresentation,  and  of  sophistry.  He  convicts  him  of  per- 
verting ancient  authors,  and  making  them  give  testimony 
against  their  own  evident  sentiments. t  He  shows,  that  "  it  is  a 
matter  of  equal  ease  with  Dr.  Priestley,  to  bring  the  holy  scrip- 
tures, or  the  writings  of  the  fathers,  on  all  occasions,  to  speak 
his  own  sentiments."! 

Bishop  Horsley  proves  that  Dr.  Priestley's  notion,  that  the 
Platonic  Christians  of  the  second  century  obtained  their  Lo- 
gos, (or  personality  of  Christ)  by  cmverting  a  divine  attribute 
into  a  person,  was  erroneous  :  That  none  did  thus,  but  the  Sa- 
bellians,  who  were  condemned  as  heretics.^ 

t  See  Tracts,  p.  50, 59,  60.    :j:  Ibid.  p.  119.     {  Ibid.  p.  321. 
17 


194 

But  to  return  from  this  digression.  I  have  shown 
that  Origin  was  a  Trinitarian,  in  the  modern  sense 
of  the  term.  I  think  it  evident,  that  Alexander 
and  Athanasius  were  thus,  who,  it  is  said  by  Mo- 
sheim,  followed  Origin  upon  this  point. 

Dionysius,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  Mosheim  like- 
wise informs,  was  a  disciple  of  Origin.  And  as 
this  historian  informs,  that ''  Origin  was  the  great 
model,  whom  the  most  eminent  of  the  Christian 
doctors  followed,  in  their  explanation  of  the  truths 
of  the  gospel ;"  so  we  conclude  Dionysius  did  im- 
bibe the  views  of  Origin,  his  master,  whatever 
they  were,  upon  the  Trinity.  But  the  views  of 
Dionysius  upon  the  Trinity  were  very  difrerent 
from  the  allegorical  Trinity  afore  noted.  Diony- 
sius wrote  against  the  Sabellians,  whose  tenets 
were,  that  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  are 
but  one  Person  ;  making  ''  the  Word,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost  only  virtues,  emanations,  or  functions 
of  Deity  ;  that  a  certain  energy,  or  portion  of  the 
divine  nature  was  united  to  the  Son  of  God,  the 
man  Christ — and  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  an  energy, 

Bishop  Horsley  convicts  Dr.  Priestley  of  makin*  a  pitiful  shift, 
— complaining,  that  he  (Bishop  H.)  did  not  understand  him, 
when  he  had  showed  his  inconsistencies.  But  the  Bishop  as- 
certains, that  he  did  understand  him,  and  had  proved  his  senti- 
ments perverse.*  This  is  an  easy  (an^i  not  an  uncommon) 
way,  with  some  men,  of  getting  rid  of  a  difficulty  ;  crying.  Oh, 
you  do  not  understand  my  scheme  :  Or,  you  misrepresent  it. 
Dr.  P.  complains,  that  his  antagonists  availed  themselves,  of  a 
review  of  cheap  and  extensive  circulation,  in  which  to  combat 
his  schemes.  Bishop  H.  tells  him,  that  this  comes  with  an  ill 
grace  from  him  ;  "  who  was  every  day  diffusing  his  dangerous 
doctrines  among  the  common  people,  in  pamphlets,  at  the  easj 
price  of  sixpence,  fourpence,  or  even  twopence."  Suc!t  men 
will  abundantly  complain  of  that  in  others,  of  which  they  them- 
selves are  in  the  every  day  practice  ;  as  though  noiw  had  li- 
berty or  rights,  but  they  \ 

*  Tracts,  p.  228. 


195 

or  a  portion  of  the  Father."  Dionysius  viewed 
the  above  scheme  to  be  very  abominable  ;  and 
*'  showed  (says  Mihier)by  unequivocal  testimony, 
that  the  Father  was  not  the  same  as  the  Son  ;  nor 
the  Son  the  same  as  the  Father.''  The  bishop  of 
Rome,  fearing  that  Dionysius  had  too  much  given 
up  the  Unity  of  the  Trinity,  called  on  him  for  ex- 
planation. This  he  readily  gave. — And,  in  addi- 
tion to  his  having  shown,  that  the  Father  is  not  the 
same  as  the  Son,  nor  the  Son  the  same  as  the  Fa- 
ther ;  he  said,  -'  The  Father  cannot  be  separated 
from  the  Son,  as  he  is  the  Father  ;  for  that  name 
at  the  same  time  establishes  the  relation  :  neither 
could  the  Son  be  separated  from  the  Father ;  for 
the  word  Father  implies  the  union.  And  the  Spirit 
is  in  their  hands  ;  because  it  cannot  exist  without 
him,  who  sends  it,  to  him,  who  bears  it.  Thus 
(says  he)  we  understand  the  indivisible  Unity  of 
the  Trinity ;  and  we  comprehend  the  Trinity  in 
the  Unity,  without  any  diminution."  "  This  (says 
Milner)  was  satisfactory,  and  was  allowed  to  con- 
tain the  sense  of  Christians  on  the  doctrine."  But 
this  account  is  wholly  different  from  the  idea  that 
Dionysius  and  the  Church  at  that  day  held,  from 
Origin,  to  the  afore  noted  allegorical  Trinity.  They 
held  to  a  real  Trinity  of  Persons,  different,  yet 
one  ;  equal,  without  diminution." 

Why  was  Sabelhanism,  in  those  days,  so  alarm- 
ing to  the  Church,  if  Christians  generally  held  that 
there  was  no  real  Trinity  of  Persons  in  the  God- 
head ?  The  Sabellians  illustrated  their  scheme  as 
follows  ;  ''As  man.  though  composed  of  soul  and 
body,  is  yet  but  one  Person  ;  so  God.  though  he 
be  Father.  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  is  yet  but  one 
real  Person."  This  scheme,  the  followers  of  Christ 
reprobated.  But  why,  if  they  had  been  believers 
in  an  allegorical  Trinity,  as  some  of  late  have  ra- 


196 

sinuated  ? — Which  is  a  scheme,  which  takes  only 
the  soul  of  man,  to  illustrate  the  Trinitj.  instead  of 
of  man's  soul  and  body,  as  did  the  Sabellians  ;  and 
which  equally,  with  the  Sabellians,  holds  to  but 
one  real  Person  in  God  !  The  one  must  have  been 
as  great,  and  as  offensive  an  error,  as  was  the  oth- 
er. And  from  the  alarm  in  the  Church  at  Sabel- 
liamsm,  we  may  safely  infer,  that  no  such  ideas  of 
an  allegorical  Trinity  did  prevail  among  the  body 
of  the  followers  of  Christ,  in  those  days. 

The  truth  of  the  above  deduction  is  established, 
in  the  following  account.  Paul,  of  Samosata,  in 
the  tiiird  ceutury,  advanced  the  following  senti- 
ment :  ''  that  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost  exist  ia 
God  in  the  same  manner,  as  the  faculties  of  rea- 
son and  activity  do  in  man."*  This  is  the  very 
scheme,  which  has  been  imputed  to  Origin,  and 
his  followers,  as  afore  noted.  A  council  was  as- 
sembled. A.  D.  269,  who  condemned  Paul  of  Sa- 
mosata, and  degraded  him  from  his  office.  This 
decides,  that  the  insinuations  of  some  in  these  days, 
relative  to  an  allegorical  Trinity,  are  not  founded 
in  truth. 

In  the  fourth  century,  Macedonicus,  bishop  of 
Constantinople,  was  tried  and  banished  for  his  he- 
resy. It  was  the  following  :  He  taught,  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  was  only  "a  divine  energy,  diffused 
through  the  universe  ;  and  not  a  Person  distinct 
from  the  Father  and  the  Son.''  "  This  opinion 
(adds  Mosheim)  had  many  partizans  in  the  Asiatic 
provinces  ;  but  the  council  assembled  by  Theodo- 
sius,  A.  D.  381,  at  Constantinople,  (to  which  the 
second  rank  among  the  general  council  is  attribut-' 
ed,)  put  a  stop,  by  its  authority,  to  tko  growing 
evil. 

*  Moslieim,  vol.  i.  p.  248. 


197 

This  treatment  of  Macedonicus,  clearly  shows, 
that  the  afore  noted  allegorical  Trinity,  was  not 
the  sentiment  of  any  considerable  part  (if  it  were 
of  any  individuals)  of  the  ministers  of  Christ  at 
that  period  :  and  also,  that  a  distinct  personality 
was  generally,  if  not  universally,  ascribed  to  the 
Holy  Ghost.  For  the  great  crime  of  Macedonicus 
was  a  denial  of  this  ;  and  an  idea,  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  only  the  energy  of  God  personified  ; 
the  very  thing,  which  some  now  with  confidence 
call  on  us  to  believe  ! 

The  council  of  Constantinople  might  be  the 
first,  who  by  authority  fixed  the  name  of  Person  to 
eaxh  in  the  holy  Trinity.  But  the  idea  was  clear- 
ly understood  from  the  days  of  the  apostles.  And 
what  are  the  /,  Ihou.  Ae,  and  W5,  in  the  Godhead, 
known  through  the  Bible,  but  representations  of 
ditTerent  Persons  ?  Nothing  is  found  in  Mosheim, 
which  appears  like  his  viewing  this  doctrine,  as  the 
work  of  man  !  He  speaks  of  it  as  having  received 
its  '•  finishing  touch,"  as  to  the  manner  of  expres- 
sion, in  the  council  of  Constantinople.  At  the  time 
of  this  council,  errors  were  prevailing,  and  the 
Church  was  in  a  decline.  But  this  council  was  a 
collection  of  the  best  characters  then  on  earth.  It 
has  been  esteemed,  in  point  of  abilities,  piety  and 
weight  of  character,  second  to  no  council  of  the 
Christian  period,  after  the  apostolic  age, except  the 
Nicene.  A  hint  then,  that  perhaps  there  never  was 
a  worse  character  given  to  any  council,  bearing  the 
Christian  name,  than  has  been  given  to  this  coun- 
cil, is  utterly  unfounded,  and  very  injudicious  ! 
Before  such  a  hint  can  be  given,  a  man  must  for- 
get, or  never  have  known,  the  numerous  corrupt 
councils  under  Roman  Catholic  jurisdiction  ;  as 
well  as  forget  the  respect,  that  is  due  to  the  united 
wisdom  and  piety  of  the  followers  of  Christ  on 
17* 


198 

tarth  at  that  period  !  And  the  agreement  of  the 
above  named  council,  how  they  would  express 
their  views  more  definitely  upon  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  was  far  from  giving  their  sanction  to 
new  doctrines,  or  doing  any  thing  worthy  of  cen- 
sure. The  orthodox  were  compelled  by  the  sub- 
terfuges and  equivocations  of  heretics,  to  the  use 
©f  more  definite  language.  But  they  formed  no 
new  doctrine,  as  some  have  basely  insinuated. 

Thus  I  have  endeavoured  to  ascertain,  what  was 
the  great  question  concerning  Jesus  Christ,  after 
he  entered  his  public  ministry  on  earth  ;  that  it 
did  not  relate  to  a  derivation  of  his  divine  Persou 
from  God  ;  but  to  the  truth  of  his  Messiahship  ; 
the  Messiah  being  understood  to  be  God  :  in  what 
sense  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God  :  in  what 
sense  he  was  begotten  of  the  Father  :  that  no  be- 
nefit results  from  a  supposed  derivation  of  Christ's 
Divinity:  that  proper  Divinity  is  infinitely  incapa- 
ble of  being  derived:  that  Jesus  Christ  is  God  un- 
derived  :  that  Christ  has  a  human  soul  and  body  : 
that  the  Godhead  consists  of  a  Trinity  in  Unity  : 
and  that  the  fathers  of  the  three  first  centuries, 
after  Christ,  clearly  testify  in  favor  of  the  Trinity, 
and  of  the  proper  Divinity  of  Christ,  essentially 
ds  now  held  bv  Trinitarians. 


i§m^ms>m^^» 


A  list  of  the  fatal  errors,  which  it  is  believed  art 
the  legitimate  otFspring  of  the  denia}  of  the  Trin- 
ity in  God,  and  of  the  proper  Divinity  of  Christ, 
might  be  furnished.  Among  these  errors  are  the 
following  :  either  that  man  is  not  fallen  and  depra- 
ved ;  or  no  atonement  was  necessary  for  the  par- 
don of  sin.  Or  if  some  atonement  were  necessary, 
a  finite  one  was  sufficient.  It  follows  that  sin  does 
not  deserve  an  eternal  punishment  ;  and  all  men 
must  eventually  be  saved.  Hence  God  is  not  so 
angry  with  sinners,  and  their  danger  is  by  no  means 
so  great,  as  has  been  represented.  Nor  is  it  so 
great  a  tiling  for  God  to  pardon  and  save  the 
children  of  Adam.  The  law  and  government  of 
God  are  not  so  terrible  to  transgressors,  as  has 
been  supposed.  Men  need  not  feel  as  though  it 
were  so  vast  a  crim.e  to  trample  them  under  foot. 
Nor  need  they  fear  eternal  damnation. 

If  men — denying  the  Trinity  and  the  proper 
Divinity  of  Christ — are  unwilling,  through  the  im- 
pressions of  a  better  education,  to  admit  the  above, 
and  similar  errors,  as  naturally  resulting  from  their 
scheme  ; — yet  it  is  believed  that  their  followers, 
who  will  come  forward  destitute  of  their  better 
i  npressions,  and  who  will  reason  more  correctly 
from  their  own  premises,  will  admit  and  embrace 
these  errors  ;  and  will  deny  the  true  scheme  of  the 
gospel. 

When  the  numerous  attempts,  which  have  beea 
made  by  human  wisdom,  to  reduce  the  doctrine  of  the 


200 

Trinity  to  a  level  with  our  familiar  conceptions, 
are  considered  ;  we  must  be  convinced  of  the  fu- 
tility of  the  attempt.  And  the  divine  precept  re- 
cars  with  emphasis,  "  Beware,  lest  any  man  spoil 
you  through  philosophy  and  vain  deceit,  after  the 
tradition  of  men,  after  the  rudiments  of  the  w^orld, 
and  not  after  Christ ;  for  in  him  dwelleth  the  ful- 
ness of  the  Godhead  bodily." 

When  the  wits  of  men  have  done  their  best  up- 
on this  subject,  and  we  see  many  strong  men,  of 
diiferent  schemes  in  it,  have  been  in  times  past  cast 
down  wounded  ;  shall  we  not,  wnth  adoring  humi- 
lity, submit  to  the  divine  interrogation,  "  Canst 
thou  by  searching,  find  out  God  ?"  May  w^e  not 
be  convinced,  that  neither  human  philosophy,  nor 
analogy,  can  atFord  much  aid,  relative  to  this  mys- 
terious doctrine  ?  For  probably  nothing  in  creation 
resembles  the  Triune  God.  '*  To  whom  then  will 
ye  liken  me,saith  Jehovah?''  "  Ye  heard  the  voice 
of  the  words  ;  but  ye  saw  no  similitude/'  And  all 
similitudes,  invented  by  men,  to  give  light  in  this 
case,  have  failed. 

The  Bible  is  clear,  that  there  are  Three  in  one 
God.  This,  with  their  divine  nanies,  and  offices, 
is  revealed  for  us,  and  for  our  children.  But  the 
particular  mode  of  their  existence,  what  constitutes 
the  personality  of  each,  what  is  their  distinction, 
and  what  their  union,  God  has  not  revealed.  And 
to  pry  into  these  things  is  worse,  than  in  vain.  It 
is  impious.  It  is  infinitely  worse,  than  for  prison- 
ers, under  sentence  of  death,  who  have  a  commis- 
sioner of  peace,  of  high  authority,  sent,  tendering 
them  pardon  ; — to  demand  his  connexion  with  the 
government ;  to  criticise  on  the  internal  economy 
of  the  government  that  sent  him ;  and  finally,  to 
insist  on  handling  his  limbs,  and  body,  to  learn  the 
formation  of  his  person. 


201 

That  the  scriptural  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  can 
correctly  be  so  explained,  as  to  silence  the  cavils 
of  wicked  men,  I  have  no  belief.  "The  carnal 
mind  is  enmity  against  God.''  And  the  world  by- 
wisdom  knew  him  not.  The  Trinity  is  not  the 
only  doctrine,  at  which  men  cavil.  Every  distin- 
guishing doctrine  of  grace  is  offensive  to  fallen  man. 
And  to  give  such  an  explanation  of  those  doctrines, 
as  that  they  shall  not  offend  the  wicked  heart,  is  to 
pervert  the  scriptures,  and  handle  the  word  of  God 
deceitfully.  This,  neither  Christ,  nor  his  apostles, 
would  ever  do.  But  it  is  the  very  business,  and  one 
distinguishing  characteristic,  of  false  teachers. 
The  ambassadors  of  Christ  are  never  to  attempt  to 
render  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  or  any  of  the 
distinguishing  doctrines  of  grace,  palatable  to  the 
carnal  mind  ;  lest  they  incur  the  charge  of  being 
men  pleasers  ;  but  not  the  servants  of  Christ. 

How  great  is  the  Saviour  of  the  world  !  He  is 
the  mighty  God  ; — mighty  to  save.  How  astonish- 
ing is  the  grace  of  heaven,  the  condescension  of 
the  high  and  lofty  One  !  That  such  a  Person 
should  be  sent,  should  come,  on  such  an  errand, 
be  manifested  in  the  flesh,  and  treated  as  Jesus 
was,  is  an  infinite  wonder !  And  it  will  be  esteem- 
ed thus,  in  eternal  ages  ! 

How  great  then,  are  the  obligations  lying  on 
-man,  to  embrace,  and  follow  Christ !  Obligations 
of  duty,  gratitude,  interest,  and  of  every  consider- 
ation, unite  to  enforce  this  duty,  with  indescribable 
weight.  Words  are  infinitely  inadequate  to  this 
subject. 

Hence  we  learn  how  astonishing  is  the  treat- 
ment, which  Christ  receives  from  gospel  despisers! 
"  Be  astonished,  O  heavens,  at  this  !''  See  perish- 
ing worms  spuriiing  at  their  Maker,  their  Proprie- 
tor, their  Saviour,  Supporter,  aad  their  final  Judge! 


202 

Going  their  ways,  to  their  farms  and  merchandise, 
^nd  making  hght  of  the  death  and  compassion  of 
the  Saviour,  who  is  God,  as  well  as  man. 

How  tremendous  will  be  the  exhibition  of  jus- 
tice and  judgment,  which  such  a  Saviour  will  make, 
against  these  his  enemies,  when  he,  "  the  Lord 
himself,  shall  be  revealed  from  heaven,  in  flammg 
fire,  taking  vengeance  on  them,  that  know  not 
God,  and  obey  not  the  gospel  of  his  Son."  That 
day,  of  the  glorious  appearing  of  the  i<reat  God, 
will  decide  who  Christ  is  ;  and  the  madness  of  the 
conduct  of  his  enem.ies. 

How  vain  are  the  efforts  of  the  enemies  of  the 
gospel,  to  overturn  the  system,  which  they  hate  ; 
when  it  was  instituted,  and  is  supported,  by  Him, 
who  is  the  great  God, — God  over  all,  blessed  for- 
ever !  They  know  not  their  Antagonist.  But  they 
will  know  him.  Their  characters  and  views  are 
multiform,  from  the  open  atheist,  to  the  highest 
fanatic.  But  in  the  cardinal  point  they  all  meet, 
to  oppose  the  scheme  of  grace  ;  to  deny  the  real 
character  of  Christ.  "  Let  us  break  his  bands 
asunder,  and  cast  his  cords  from  us,''  is  the  ex- 
press, or  implicit  language  of  their  hearts  and 
lives  !  But  Christ  is  mighty  to  destroy,  as  well  as 
to  save.  For  he  is  God,  the  Almighty !  "  He,  that 
sitteth  in  the  heavens  shall  laugh  ;  Jehovah  shall 
have  them  in  derision."  He  sees  their  day  is 
coming. 

But  Zion  shall  be  safe.  Great  is  the  holy  One 
of  Krael  in  the  midst  of  her.  Her  Saviour  is  the 
Jehovah  of  hosts.  The  Captain  of  her  salvation 
has  everlastiii^  strcn-^th.  Tiie  Church  then,  may 
welt  triumph,  and  say,  "  This  is  our  God  ;  we 
have  waited  for  him  ;  he  will  save  us."  '^  I'lie 
Lord  of  hosts  is  with  m  ;  the  God  of  Jacob  is  our 
Refujje." 


CONTENTS, 


Section  K, 

What  was  the  great  question  concerning  Jesus  Christ, 

after  he  entered  his  public  ministry  ?         -        -        -         11 


Section  K£. 

On  the  Sonship  of  Christ.        -----  19 

Section  KJEK, 

Further  rfimarks  relative  to  the  Sonship  of  Christ.       -        35 

Section  K5^, 

No  benefit  results  from  a  supposed  derivation  of  Christ's 

Divinity.     - --  4f 

Section  i^. 

Proper  Divinity  is  infinitely  incapable  t»f  derivation.     -        SS 

Section  Wli. 

Jesus  Christ  is  God  underived.         -        -        .        -  gX 

Section  2^XX. 

J«sus  Christ  has  a  humaa  3oul  as  well  as  bodj.    -        •      lit 


SrctCon  ^KIM. 

The  Godhead  consists  of  Trinity  in  Unity.        -        -  135 

Section  )tX* 

Testimonies  of  the  primitive  Fathers,  in  favor  of  the 
doctrine  of  a  Trinity  in  Unity  in  the  Godhead,  and  of 
the  proper  Divinity  of  Christ.  -        -         -         .       175 

CONCLUSION. iH 


I 


fj 


